For nervous fliers, having a cocktail or two to ease nerves on a flight isn’t unheard of. But apparently the United Kingdom has recently seen a dramatic uptick in the number of drunk passengers arrested for acting inappropriately in the air. The number of passengers arrested for being drunk or disorderly on flights or in airports has increased by 50 percent over the past year. And it’s causing a big problem for members of the cabin crew–roughly half have reported having to deal with a disruptive passenger over the same time period.

A BBC investigation surveyed 18 of the 20 UK police forces that serve major airports. They report arresting 387 passengers over the past year, up from 255 the year before that. Many cabin crew members reported that they were subjected to physical abuse from disorderly passengers. A woman who used to work in a Virgin cabin crew, Ally Murphy, told the BBC reporters about her experience, saying: “People just see us as barmaids in the sky.” She described being assaulted by passengers, stating:

I was pulled into an upper-class bed by a passenger who was feeling particularly lucky I guess. They would touch your breasts, or they’d touch your bum or your legs, or I mean I’ve had hands going up my skirt before.

It’s rage inducing, and you shouldn’t have to deal with that.

I guess I never reported it to the police because sadly, and this is completely wrong and only really occurring to me now, you kind of just accept it as part of the job. And it shouldn’t be.

Drunken fliers can potentially endanger their fellow passengers; Murphy also described a passenger trying to open an emergency door.

But in the U.S., incidents of unruly passengers actually seem to be decreasing. According to the FAA there’s been a steady decline in incidents voluntarily reported by airlines over the past few years–there were 147 in 2014, 105 in 2015, and 97 in 2016. So far, 22 incidents have been reported in 2017. But, those numbers, as well as the incidents reported in the UK, need to be taken with a grain of salt. There are surely drunk passengers who don’t alert suspicion, as well as “unruly” passengers who haven’t imbibed at all. And there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that some Americans like having a few on flights as well. A recent Vice op-ed authored by an anonymous flight attendant reported seeing plenty of drunk passengers, including those who experienced negative interactions between alcohol and calming drugs.

So, wherever you’re flying, don’t be a drunken jerk. It can be dangerous for you, other passengers, and the cabin crew.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UK Police See Big Increase in Drunk Flier Arrests appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump is “Thankful” to Putin for Expelling U.S. Diplomats From Russia

Late last month, President Vladimir Putin decided to expel 775 U.S. diplomats and staffers from the U.S. Embassy and consulates in Russia. Yesterday, President Donald Trump commented on that decision for the first time. Trump said that he is very thankful to Putin for helping him cut down the payroll and that it was great that he let “a large number of people” go. “There’s no real reason for them to go back. I greatly appreciate the fact that we’ve been able to cut our payroll of the United States. We’re going to save a lot of money,” he said. Some people thought it was a way to troll Putin.

I get it! Trump’s using reverse psychology on Putin … as some 2nd grade teachers do. Certain to work on a KGB trained killler/dictator. https://t.co/J6v5HY3h06

— Ronald Klain (@RonaldKlain) August 11, 2017

But Trump was not clear on whether he was actually joking, and a lot of people were baffled that the president took the increased tensions with Russia so lightly, as well as hundreds of people losing their jobs. Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul was not entertained and pointed out that the diplomatic staff in Russia provides the U.S. with invaluable information about the country, which is an incredibly important function.

Imagine wanting to know less about Russia’s military modernization! That’s what Trump praised today. https://t.co/qMorkknjhU

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 10, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, Britain’s Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs released documents detailing the country’s plan to reduce air pollution over the next several years. Most notably, the United Kingdom will ban the sale of new petrol or diesel-powered cars and vans by 2040.

In addition to the ban on gas vehicles, the government reiterated its desire to fully implement its recently-announced £2.7 billion investments into low-emission taxis, car-rental programs, roads, and green bus retrofits.

In its plan, the government pledges to be the “the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it.”

Europe’s Green Trend

Britain’s announcement comes at a time when air quality levels are increasingly at the forefront of policies across Europe, as the continent tries to grapple with the increased effects of climate change.

“It’s important we all gear up for a significant change, which deals not just with the problems to health caused by emissions but the broader problems caused in terms of accelerating climate change,” Britain’s Environment Secretary Michael Gove said.

New diesel and petrol cars are to be banned from 2040 as part of a new strategy to tackle air pollution https://t.co/Bmj3JSq6BN pic.twitter.com/MEjFNoqO9R

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) July 26, 2017

Britain’s new policy mimics France’s ban on gas and diesel cars by 2040, which was announced last month after the country struggled with dense smog and pollution in its larger urban areas. It’s also inspiring some Irish politicians to advocate for a similar commitment.

“If Ireland doesn’t change it’s in the danger of becoming a dumping ground. We need to set a date and work from it, without targets we are rudderless,” said Ireland’s Green Party Councillor Ciaran Cuffe.

Too Little, Too Late?

Some politicians, including former Labour Leader Ed Miliband, are saying that this announcement is largely meant to act as a media charade, to distract from ongoing Brexit negotiations and the fact that the U.K. government has been slow to tackle the issue seriously.

Fear that new car petrol/diesel ban in 23 years time is smokescreen for weak measures to tackle 40,000 deaths a year from air pollution now.

— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) July 25, 2017

Criticism is also emerging from industry officials who condemn the government’s plan because of the negative ramifications it may have on car manufacturing jobs.

“Outright bans risk undermining the current market for new cars and our sector, which supports over 800,000 jobs across the U.K.,” said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Even among supporters of a gas car ban, some are critical of the timeline, which they consider to be too forgiving.

Areeba Hamid, a clean air campaigner at Greenpeace UK said: “We cannot wait nearly a quarter of a century for real action to tackle the public health emergency caused by air pollution.”

While 2040 was set as a benchmark by other countries, India has stated that every vehicle sold in the country should be powered by electricity by 2030.

Norway has adopted a similar rule, but has set its target to ban diesel-powered vehicles by 2025. Forty percent of all cars sold in Norway last year were electric or hybrid, making the country a leader in this area.

Maybe Not…

In comparison to some other countries, the U.K.’s goals seem far off. Yet, researchers are confident that the market might naturally transition to cleaner cars sooner than politicians expect.

The Dutch financial group ING released a report earlier this month predicting that the electric car market will see a major breakthrough between 2017 and 2024, and could supply 100 percent of Europe’s car demand by 2035.

Car manufacturers aren’t wasting any time either. Tesla made waves when it announced its mass market electric Model 3 car earlier this month.

Also this month, Volvo said that all of its cars would be be completely or partially electric by 2019. Volvo’s chief executive Håkan Samuelsson called for the “end of the solely combustion engine-powered car.” And BMW announced on Tuesday that it would start building an electric model of the Mini compact car in England through 2023.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Britain to Ban Sale of Gas and Diesel Cars by 2040 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Jeff Sessions vs. Donald Trump?

It seems like Attorney General Jeff Sessions is in a bit of a spat with his boss, President Donald Trump. Trump has sent out multiple tweets specifically targeting Sessions; in addition to calling him “beleaguered” last week, he tweeted criticisms about his job performance yesterday.

Why didn’t A.G. Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of Clinton investigation but got….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

…big dollars ($700,000) for his wife’s political run from Hillary Clinton and her representatives. Drain the Swamp!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

But apparently these attacks on Sessions aren’t sitting well with Republicans in Washington. Some of Trump’s top aides are reportedly frustrated with Trump’s criticism of Sessions, including Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon. And some Senate Republicans have made it clear that they won’t support a Sessions replacement. A few have even spoken out against Trump’s attacks. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said it was “highly inappropriate” and “says more about President Trump than it does Attorney General Sessions, and to me, it’s a sign of great weakness on the part of President Trump.”

Republicans say nothing as Trump belittles every enemy, institution, and at-risk group. He goes after Jeff Sessions? Deeply, deeply troubled

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) July 26, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The company that supplied cladding panels for the Grenfell Tower block in West London has ceased sales of its product for use on other high-rises, two weeks after a fire raged through the building, killing at least 79 residents.

Arconic, a U.S.-based aluminum firm, said the fire identified “issues” with the polyethylene core cladding, which it sold to a local distributor for use on the public housing complex. As investigations into the fire’s cause continue, more buildings across London have been revealed to use the same or similar materials.

What Did the Firm Know?

A Reuters report revealed that Arconic officials knew of the material’s flammability, and that a company brochure published in 2016 noted that the panels should not be used for buildings taller than 10 meters. The material is banned elsewhere in Europe and in the U.S.

In a statement to Reuters Arconic said that it had known the panels would be used at Grenfell Tower but that it was “not its role to decide what was or was not compliant with local building regulations.”

Other involved parties, such as those who installed the panels, the tower’s recent refurbishment contractor, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which the tower block, have yet to talk to the media.

The cladding, Reynobond PE, has a plastic core, which experts say creates a “chimney effect,” shooting an intense heat and fire vertically around the outside of the building. The Grenfell fire was started when a Hotpoint refrigerator positioned against an exterior wall burst into flames and ignited the flammable cladding. Investigators have determined that the fire was not started deliberately.

Investigating More Buildings

U.K. officials are currently running tests of cladding samples from buildings across the country to evaluate their fire safety preparedness. So far, 95 towers have failed local fire safety tests, and at least 17 buildings are undergoing removal of the cladding. A Scottish university has ordered repairs to one of its residence halls after finding the material.

Prime Minister Theresa May has called for a thorough investigation into the use of this cladding material on high-rises. Authorities are considering potential manslaughter and criminal charges as the investigation of the fire’s cause continues.

As more fire safety noncompliance instances are discovered, thousands have been evacuated from potentially dangerous buildings. The fire was the country’s deadliest in more than a century.

The Price of Safety

The Grenfell fire and information about the hazardous cladding reveal a disaster that was years in the making. Safety components like sprinklers, fire alarms, and fire escapes were nonexistent in the building, and residents complained for years prior to the blaze that their living conditions were dangerous.

Most of the structures in need of repairs due to flammable cladding are social housing buildings–government or council-owned properties for low-income residents. This is indicative of bigger-picture neglect of the city’s poor.

Kensington, where Grenfell Tower is located, has one of the city’s largest gaps between the affluent and the working class. Monthly rent for private housing costs nearly five times as much as that of social housing, and poor residents in the area say they have felt pushed out by the wealthy community.

Officials and politicians have said that requiring only fire-proof building materials is not economically viable for the government–the cost concerns outweighed the potential risk. The Reynobond PE cladding is cheaper than other cladding produced by Arconic.

Surviving residents of the Grenfell blaze are demanding a say in the logistics of the public inquiry. While unusual, the request appears appropriate to help local authorities regain the trust of residents as protests against the prime minister and other local leaders continue.

Last week, the British government announced in a press release that the first set of new homes for displaced Grenfell residents have been secured. Social housing is also expected to see an increase in funding due to increased political pressure. While it won’t undo the Grenfell tragedy or give much comfort to the families whose loved ones are still missing, a heightened focus on the unsafe living conditions in social housing is a step in the right direction for a government that has turned a blind eye to its poorest residents.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Firm Halts Sale of Flammable Material Found in London Grenfell Fire appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Theresa May Loses Majority in Huge Upset

Prime Minister Theresa May originally called for the snap election in the U.K. to strengthen the position of her Conservative Party, but after yesterday’s votes were counted it was clear that she came out the loser. Her party still holds a plurality, but no one party will hold a majority. This is called a hung parliament, meaning that May will need to form a coalition with other parties. And her party will have a hard time passing legislation, as the main opposition party, Labour, won so many seats. Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn said May should resign and that he wants to form a minority government. But May doesn’t seem likely to resign–in a speech, she announced she will form a government with a small Northern Irish Party called DUP. Now a lot of people are expressing worries about what will happen with the impending Brexit talks.

PM Theresa May says Conservatives will ensure much-needed “stability” for Britain as the party reels from a string of losses pic.twitter.com/LBIx3HK1EI

— AFP news agency (@AFP) June 9, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Comey Testifies in Front of the Senate

This morning at 10, the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing of former FBI Director James Comey began. The hearing is intended to address President Donald Trump’s interactions with Comey regarding the FBI’s investigation into Russian hacking of the 2016 elections. Yesterday, Comey’s prepared testimony was released and many people said the content was troubling. It described, among other things, the president’s request for loyalty during a private dinner with Comey–followed by an “awkward silence” and a staring contest. Comey then spoke to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and asked to not be left alone with the president again, as the request made him uneasy.

At the entrance to the Comey hearing room, one of the cops tells me he’s never seen anything like this pic.twitter.com/GpZx8kJ3oZ

— Adam Khan (@Khanoisseur) June 8, 2017

This is a pretty big deal, so a lot of bars opened early to let people watch the hearing live. A D.C. bar served discounted Russian vodka with “FBI sandwiches” and wrote on Facebook, “Grab your friends, grab a drink and let’s COVFEFE!”

Only in DC would a restaurant/bar play the Comey Hearing live and feature themed food and drinks. If you haven’t heard it’s at Shaw’s Tavern pic.twitter.com/iIJzxUYsKN

— Samantha-Jo Roth (@SamanthaJoRoth) June 5, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Hong Kong recently held elections to determine the next Chief Executive of the semi-autonomous region. Despite widespread pro-democracy protests in 2014, a pro-Beijing government official, Carrie Lam, was elected. Following the election, leaders of that very same pro-democracy movement were faced with threats of arrest. To fully understand these events, it is necessary to look back to Hong Kong’s history as well as the history of the protest movement. Read on further to find out where this movement sprang from and to learn about the current state of democracy in Hong Kong.

History of Hong Kong

Humans have lived in what is now Hong Kong for thousands of years. However, it was not until the rise of the Eastern Han Dynasty that the area was considered part of the Chinese Empire. Beginning in the 12th century, five clans of the Han Dynasty, who still exercise power in Hong Kong today, began to arrive. Some believe that as these groups came to the area they started to push out some of the original inhabitants who moved onto houseboats and formed fishing communities that still exist today.

Despite Hong Kong becoming incorporated into the Chinese Empire, in many respects, it remained largely untended. Its location and the rise in trade allowed for the entrance of foreign actors, namely the Europeans. Trade flows started with the Portuguese and continued with the Dutch, French, and finally the British. Chinese authorities made efforts to curb European influence but they proved futile given the high demand for Chinese goods in Europe. Eager to correct a trade imbalance, the British introduced opium, which led to the emergence of a large market as well as the spread of addiction in China. In response, the Chinese Emperor tried to outlaw opium, culminating in the Opium Wars.

In 1842, following the first Opium War, China ceded Hong Kong to Great Britain and access to several ports in Treaty of Nanking. In 1898, the British were given an additional 99-year lease on the city as well as for 235 other small islands. Over the years, the city became a haven for those fleeing both domestic upheavals and later the Japanese during World War II. In 1941 Japan occupied Hong Kong, causing many to leave for mainland China. Britain later reestablished control in 1946.

Shortly after the war, Hong Kong underwent an economic boom. But in the following decades, the city saw social strife and riots as workers chafed at economic inequality and were influenced by policies from the mainland. In the 1970s, Hong Kong emerged as one of the “Asian Tigers,” a highly developed economy in the region. In 1982 Great Britain and China began negotiations to return the city to China, culminating in the Joint Declaration of 1984. This agreement called for Hong Kong to maintain its capitalist economy and partially-democratic system for the next 50 years. It’s important to note, however, that while the agreement called for eventual universal suffrage, that specific mandate was not guaranteed, leaving it open to interpretation.  The following video provides a good history of Hong Kong from the inception of British rule to the present:

Hong Kong’s Government

The Special Administrative Region, its formal distinction, is governed by the Basic Law of Hong Kong. This system guarantees 50 years of autonomy for the region and a government consisting of the Chief Executive, the Executive Council, a two-tiered legislature, and an independent judiciary. The Chief Executive and the Executive Council, which is essentially the Chief Executive’s cabinet, lead the government and perform many of the same functions as the Executive Branch in the United States.

The Chief Executive is elected by an election committee that is comprised of 1,194 members. Only 70 of the members are government officials while the rest are a mix of elites from various professions. This method of election has garnered extensive criticism and the results have sparked protests in the past. Much of that criticism is due to the heavy influence of Beijing among the elites as well as the extent of its influence over candidate selection and election rules. To win the election, the Chief Executive needs to garner a majority of the election committee’s vote.

The Legislative Council is currently composed of 70 members, up from its original 60. It has been in existence since the beginning of British rule in 1843. Originally, it served as more of an advisory board, but throughout the years–especially following the transition from British Colony to Chinese Special Administrative Region in 1997–it has taken on many of the responsibilities of a traditional Western-style legislature. Some of its specific duties include: enacting and amending laws, creating public budgets, appointing and removing the judges of the Final Court of Appeals and the Chief Justice, and holding the power to impeach the Chief Executive. Half of its members are directly elected based on geography, the other half are chosen by government bodies.

Below the legislature are the District Councils, which direct some public spending at the local level and advise the government on issues affecting people in their jurisdictions. Funding allocated to District Councils is typically used for cultural and community activities within the district.

The judiciary acts independently of the executive and legislature and uses a common law system that is based on the region’s Basic Law. All courts fall under the ultimate authority of the Court of Final Appeals headed by the Chief Justice. The Court of Final Appeals essentially serves as Hong Kong’s Supreme Court.

Pro-Democracy Protests

The pro-democracy sentiment in Hong Kong has existed since before it became a Special Administrative Region in China. In 1984, China and Great Britain signed an agreement to transfer Hong Kong to the Chinese after Britain’s 99-year lease ended in 1997. That treaty led to the notion of “one nation, two systems” for Hong Kong and China. One of the basic tenants of this agreement was the Basic Law, which promised universal suffrage after a certain time period passed. However, the sentiment behind the treaty was quickly brought into question, long before the actual transfer, after China’s tough crackdown in Tiananmen Square. The 1990s saw another brief crisis when Great Britain’s last colonial governor tried to increase democratic reforms, which enraged the Chinese government. Ultimately though, it eventually agreed to a watered-down version of the reforms.

China’s choice for the first post-British leader, combined with a proposed anti-subversion law, quickly galvanized the pro-Democracy movement in Hong Kong. The anti-subversion law, which would have criminalized criticism of Beijing, led 500,000 people to march in the streets. Ultimately, the law was never enacted. Protests continued after this incident, including in 2004 when Beijing ruled against universal suffrage and direct elections for Hong Kong’s Chief Executive. In the following year, protesters held remembrances for the 16th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests; Hong Kong was the only part of China to acknowledge the anniversary.

A breakthrough was seemingly achieved in 2007 when Beijing promised to allow direct election of the Chief Executive by 2017 and the Legislature Council by 2020. Events seemed to be keeping pace in 2010 when the Democratic Party held its first talks with the mainland government since the transfer. In 2014, voters pressed the issue and in an unofficial referendum, 800,000 people, or 90 percent, voted in favor of having the power to select the list of candidates up for election. This referendum was dismissed and ruled illegal by China. In 2014, China went further and ruled that citizens of Hong Kong would not be allowed to directly elect leaders in the 2017 election.

These decisions led to the Umbrella Movement in 2014. The movement, named for the umbrellas that protesters used to shield themselves from tear gas and rain, grew out of an earlier student movement and led to the Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong’s financial district.  These, in turn, led to police crackdowns and anti-occupy protests. This continued until the protest camps were ultimately removed in December 2014. The accompanying video summarizes the Umbrella Movement in greater detail:

The Aftermath

Following the protests, new election reforms were proposed in 2015 but were defeated by the Legislative Council. In 2016, protests started again after Beijing removed pro-democracy candidates from the Legislative Council elections, however, they were countered by pro-Beijing supporters and the protests failed to amount to anything.

Following the most recent election, in which pro-Beijing candidate Carrie Lam was elected, at least nine protest organizers were ordered to report to the police or face arrest. This also sparked protests across the city and led to the planning of a citywide protest on July 1, Lam’s first day in office and also the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong becoming a part of China.

Conclusion

Hong Kong has long served as an important port city between China and the West. It served as a toe-hold for several competing European nations until the British finally established a permanent colony. Britain imported large amounts of opium and resorted to force to maintain its control over the city and trade with the region. However, under British rule, Hong Kong was often isolated from Chinese politics and developed its own civic culture. Although residents of Hong Kong never had universal suffrage–either under the British during the colonial era and now as a Special Administrative Region in China–Hong Kong has long had a distinct economic and political system that has been at odds with China.

When the British did eventually return Hong Kong to China, it was with the understanding that customs established under British rule, most notably limited democracy, would be respected. However, since the transition, democracy in Hong Kong has been challenged. The pro-democracy movement has endured in the face of many efforts by the Chinese to maintain control and stability. Perhaps the most obvious example was the Umbrella Movement. Mainland China is back on the offensive again though, with the recent arrests of Umbrella Movement leaders.

So, it will be interesting to see what the next step is. For all the talk of democracy in Hong Kong, its people have never actually elected its top executive; even when the British ruled the governor was appointed. Furthermore, while the protests against Beijing’s interference or for direct elections have drawn massive crowds, they have also spawned counter-protests. Hong Kong remains a divided city that faces several challenges when it comes to democratic concessions from the mainland. While the government in Beijing has allowed some reforms in the past, it remains reluctant to allow anything that resembles universal suffrage. While much of the future relies on the actions of the Chinese government, the pro-democracy movement will also need to coalesce around a clear vision for reform and transition.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fate of Hong Kong’s Pro-Democracy Movement appeared first on Law Street.

Dreamer Hits Back at People Sending Her Online Threats

ASU student Belén Sisa came to the United States with her parents when she was six years old. She is protected under the DACA program and is allowed to live, study, and work in the United States. On Sunday she posted a selfie with a tax form on Instagram. She wanted to show that there are millions of immigrants who work hard and pay taxes and don’t get anything back from the system, as they are not eligible for benefits or unemployment.

Belen interned in our Phoenix office. I’m proud to see her dispelling myths about immigrants & defending #Dreamers https://t.co/ktKginIxDK

— Ruben Gallego (@RepRubenGallego) March 28, 2017

But the post resulted in a ton of hate messages on social media; people called her derogatory names, said they had reported her to ICE and that she would be deported, and claimed that she is a criminal. Someone even photoshopped a disturbing picture of her decapitated, with Trump throwing her head over a wall. But she hit back at the harassers by Instagramming pictures of their messages, with their social media names fully visible. “Those messages were to instill fear and ensure we wouldn’t fight back, but it made me do the complete opposite,” she said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 29, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the deadly terror attack in London last week, UK officials have renewed pressure on Facebook’s popular encrypted messaging service, WhatsApp, to create a backdoor for law enforcement.

Khalid Masood, the man identified as the Westminster Bridge attacker, reportedly logged on to the app minutes before he went on a murderous rampage that left four dead and dozens wounded. UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd believes WhatsApp and other encryption messaging services like it should give authorities access to their platforms in cases like this because “there should be no place for terrorists to hide.”

“We need to make sure that organizations like WhatsApp, and there are plenty of others like that, don’t provide a secret place for terrorists to communicate with each other,” said Rudd on BBC One’s “Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday.

“It used to be that people would steam open envelopes or just listen in on phones when they wanted to find out what people were doing, legally, through warranty,” added Rudd. “But on this situation we need to make sure that our intelligence services have the ability to get into situations like encrypted WhatsApp.”

WhatsApp use something called end-to-end encryption, which ensures all messages are secure by generating a unique “lock and key” that allows only the designated sender and recipient(s) access to the material shared. The messages are so secure in fact, that even WhatsApp doesn’t have access to the material that is shared.

Therefore, investigators are unable to see if Masood sent a message before the attack, and if so to whom–hence the UK investigators’ request for a backdoor. Police believe that Masood acted alone in the attack and are determined to understand if he “was a lone actor inspired by terrorist propaganda or if others have encouraged, supported or directed him.”

WhatsApp isn’t the the only app that uses end-to-end encryption. Apple’s iMessage service features the same level of security. In February of last year, Apple CEO Tim Cook spoke out against building a backdoor to the iPhone, after his company was asked to assist the FBI in unlocking an iPhone linked to the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. Cook said the backdoor would be “too dangerous to create.”

On Sunday, however, Rudd said, “I would ask Tim Cook to think again about other ways of helping us work out how we can get into the situations like WhatsApp on the Apple phone.”

Rudd said she is planning to meet with internet technology giants Google, Facebook, and Twitter later this week to discuss the issue further, but it’s unlikely that any of these companies will be willing to take a gamble with their users’ security.

According to BBC, a WhatsApp spokeswoman said that the company was “horrified at the attack” and is cooperating with the investigation.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Encryption Battle: UK Calls for WhatsApp Backdoor After London Attack appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Sessions Threatens Sanctuary Cities

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said yesterday that the White House will follow through on the executive order to withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, meaning cities where local law enforcement officials limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Sessions made this announcement during the daily press briefing at the White House yesterday, which some saw as a sign that Trump wants to move on and divert attention from the failed health care bill. “They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets,” he said.

Democratic officials in states like California and New York forcefully spoke out against the AG’s comments, with California State Senator Kevin de Leon saying that he uses “unconstitutional threats and blackmail to prey on anxieties.” There are also worries that a crackdown on undocumented immigrants will make immigrants less likely to report crimes to police, for fear of retaliation. The total amount of money withheld could be more than $4.1 billion. In New York, a lot of that federal money is used to prevent terrorist attacks, so the order could make cities less secure.

#JeffSessions and @WhiteHouse continue #AlternativeFacts streak. Truth is sanctuary cities are less dangerous than nonsanctuary cities.

— Kevin de Leόn (@kdeleon) March 27, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On March 29, Prime Minister Theresa May will trigger Article 50 and initiate the United Kingdom’s official withdrawal from the European Union. Once EU officials receive notice of the UK’s intention to leave, the two parties will be able to formally negotiate the terms under which it will leave, and how it will interact with the union going forward. Much has been made about the likelihood that EU negotiators will be keen to make an example of the United Kingdom so as to send a message to other member states who may be eyeing an exit. However, if Theresa May’s political history is anything to go by, a comprehensive split with the European Union will suit her government just fine.

Following the referendum, there was much debate over whether May’s government ought to pursue a “soft Brexit,” which would have allowed Britain to stay in the Common Market, or sever all existing ties with the European Economic Area and undertake a “hard Brexit.” Polls released the day before May’s speech on her plan to leave the EU showed that more Britons supported either remaining in the European Union or at least the Common Market. May ultimately committed to a “hard Brexit,” claiming that remaining within the single market “would, for all intents and purposes, mean not leaving the EU at all.”

Controlling immigration has long been the priority for the former Home Secretary, which is a key factor in why she was elevated from her position to prime minister in the wake of a referendum result that was largely motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment. In the run up to the referendum, May backed the Remain campaign but her support was unenthusiastic; she rarely spoke in favor of EU membership. On a rare occasion May did speak, she still expressed her distaste for freedom of movement. During her time as home secretary, May put forward a number of hardline immigration policies that were criticized by many as being overtly harmful to immigrants and their families.

Considering May’s feelings on immigration, it is no surprise she opted to pursue a “hard Brexit” plan that would allow Britain to have absolute control over immigration policy. Wishing to avoid a domino-like collapse of the union, EU negotiators would have likely rejected a plan that allowed the UK to remain within the Common Market. However, considering that a “soft Brexit” would have carried provisions for the freedom of movement of people, it is unlikely May would have gone for these terms anyway.

Relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union are likely somewhat tense. Once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations begin, both sides will be trying to score political points. May’s government will hope to convince the British public and the world that the United Kingdom would be better off outside of the EU. The EU will be aiming to stem the tide of euro-skepticism by demonstrating value of EU membership and the cost that exiting the union incurs.

While the two parties have distinct goals, their plans for achieving their respective objectives appear to be largely the same: pursue a definitive break. In her speech announcing a “hard Brexit,” May declared that she would not be bullied by the EU claiming that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.” In October, President François Hollande said that “there must be a price” for leaving the EU and that Britain cannot expect to “to enjoy supposed benefits [of EU membership] without downsides.”

Both the UK and the EU have drawn lines in the sand. As of now, a “hard Brexit” appears to be the mutually agreeable course of action, but only time will tell whether both, neither, or just one of the parties were well advised in pursuing such a conclusive break.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The UK and EU Both Seem to Want a “Hard Brexit,” but for Different Reasons appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

New Immigration Enforcement Rules Could Affect Millions

Yesterday, the government began issuing some new guidelines for the deportation of undocumented immigrants. The new rules, detailed via a pair of memos, are very aggressive and would focus on people who are charged with or suspected of crimes–previous guidelines prioritized those who have been convicted. These crimes can include minor offenses, like abuse of government benefits or engaging in “willful misrepresentation” in any official matter.

In the memos, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly also said that officials can deport any undocumented immigrants they believe could pose a threat to national security. He also called for the hiring of 15,000 new border patrol agents and for the building of the wall on the Mexican border to begin. It is unclear how this would be funded, but millions of people could potentially face deportation.

TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON THE ‘UNDOCUMENTED’: Trump’s new barbaric order can literally rip a family apart for jaywalking https://t.co/rIYXPjA20k

— Bill Madden (@activist360) February 21, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 22, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The 2017 French Presidential Elections are quickly approaching and Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right Front National (FN), leads in the polls. Like much of the western world, France has seen an upsurge in far-right, nationalistic sentiment. When comparing the 2017 race to French and European elections gone by, it is difficult to envision Le Pen’s path to the presidency. However, even if she is defeated, Le Pen’s far-right platform will remain a definitive political force in France for the foreseeable future.

The Situation in France

According to recent polls, Le Pen leads a handful of candidates with 26 percent favorability. Assuming polls hold steady, Marine Le Pen will win the first round of voting, scheduled for April 23, but will not accrue the majority required to win the election outright. Le Pen will have to compete in a run off election against the second most popular candidate.

This will not be the first time a Le Pen reaches the run off round of a presidential election. Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s father, came second in the first round of votes to earn one of two places in the run off round of the 2002 election. In the first round of voting, Jean-Marie Le Pen earned 16.9 percent of the vote compared to the center-right Jacques Chirac’s 19.9 percent. In the run off, Le Pen lost in a landslide. Le Pen was barely able to improve his 16.9 percent share, while Chirac’s share of the vote soared to 82.2 percent. Chirac was scandal ridden and highly unpopular. However, his left wing opponents backed him in the second round, calling on the French public to “vote for the crook, not the fascist.” Chirac won because he was seen by a Le Pen-fearing coalition as the lesser of two evils.

It is important to note that Jean-Marie Le Pen was an underdog, whereas his daughter is expected to win the first round. It is therefore unlikely that Marine Le Pen’s fate will perfectly map that of her father. However, Le Pen’s defeat to an anti-right wing coalition in the run off still seems imminent. If results in Austria’s 2016 presidential election are anything to go by, even the most popular of right wing politicians can struggle to overcome a two-round electoral system.

Lessons from the Rest of Europe

Like France, Austria’s elections make use of the two-round system. In the run-up to Austria’s first round of voting, Norbert Hofer, a far-right nationalist, held a sizable lead over his competitor. The Austrian nationalist ended up winning the first round by 13.8 percent. However, after an annulled run off election that was too close to call, Hofer lost the rerun by 7.6 percent. Hofer’s lead going into, and coming out of, the first round of voting was considerably greater than the lead Le Pen currently enjoys. Hofer’s first round victory was not particularly shocking. However, even with his sizable first round victory, the Austrian nationalist was unable to overcome the the anti-right wing coalition that formed in the second round.

Over the last few years, there have been a slew of analyses discrediting the viability of a right-wing populist movement. Such predictions were almost invariably disproven. While a Le Pen victory might be unlikely, it would be hardly come as a total surprise considering the state of contemporary western politics. Regardless of whether Le Pen overcomes a prospective anti-FN voter-bloc in the second round, her style of right wing nationalism will demand a response from whomever holds power. In France and elsewhere, far-right mobilizations have now entered the political mainstream.

Though Hofer was unable to win the largely ceremonial presidency, the centrist-controlled Austrian Parliament has already begun to pander to the far-right. In January, the parliament passed laws that would require asylum seekers undergo an “integration year” during which they would be expected to learn German. Austria has also become the latest European country to ban Muslim women from wearing full-face veils in public spaces–a entirely symbolic move considering only about 150 women in Austria wear such veils.

In the UK, the center-right Conservative Party has similarly worked to appease nationalists. Former Prime Minister David Cameron made the decision to call a referendum on EU membership that was seen by observers as a way of appeasing the far-right UK Independence Party and the more conservative members of his own party. Cameron expected the referendum to fail and hoped the public’s support would neutralize his far-right opponents. His plan backfired. The public voted to leave and Cameron resigned. In spite of the fact that a majority of parliamentary conservatives wished to remain in the EU, Theresa May, the new conservative leader, claims she is firmly committed to imposing the type of hardline immigration policies demanded by British nationalists.

The Netherlands has a general election scheduled for March 15 and the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) is scrambling to maintain control of the government. Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) leads in the polls. Though Wilders’ PVV will not win enough seats to form a government outright, his party is currently projected to win the greatest number of seats. Though Mark Rutt, Prime Minister and Leader of the VVD, has ruled out the possibility that his party would form a coalition government with the far-right PVV, he has been pandering to an increasingly nationalistic public. Last month, he ordered immigrants to “act ‘normal’, or go away.”

What Does this Mean for Far-Right Movements?

Far-right mobilizations have gained, and will likely continue to gain, power, irrespective of whether or not they win elections. Marine Le Pen’s run for the presidency could very well fall short, but her surge in popularity over the past few years is indicative of France’s entrenched far-right movement. Assuming Le Pen loses, the party that achieves power will not have done so by inspiring a united support base or platform. The party in power will reflect a disjointed majority that will collectively disagree with Le Pen but might not agree on that much else. A fragmented leadership will only favor the far-right. As France’s far-right continues to voice their concerns, those in power will be forced to respond. This response will never disarm the far-right if those delivering it are politically impotent and ideologically incoherent.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Even if Marine Le Pen Loses, French Nationalism Will Still Win appeared first on Law Street.

Apparently, someone lost their luggage, and they’re probably pretty upset about it. Bags that washed up on two beaches in Norfolk on England’s east coast turned out to contain almost 800 pounds of cocaine, worth more than $60 million. A member of the public found the drugs, packed in colorful North Face bags.

The National Crime Agency deals with organized crime in the UK, and responded to the find. “This is obviously a substantial seizure of class A drugs and its loss will represent a major blow to the organized criminals involved,” said Matthew Rivers from the NCA border investigation team. He added that the place where the bags showed up was most likely not the intended destination–they were found outside two small towns with a couple of thousand people each, Hopton-on-Sea and Caister-on-Sea. The NCA is working with the coastguard to try to determine where the drugs were supposed to go.

Investigation after £50m cocaine found on Norfolk beaches > https://t.co/ieKU1kGOku pic.twitter.com/GT6PoGYkCW

— Norfolk Police (@NorfolkPolice) February 10, 2017

This is not the first time drugs on the loose ended up on a beach in the British Isles. In October, a torpedo-like device with over $5 million of cocaine inside was found stranded on a beach in Western Ireland and was believed to have been there for weeks or months before anyone noticed. There was another similar incident in 2008. And the biggest cocaine seizure in the UK was water related as well–three tons in 2015, worth over $620 million, found in a ship off the coast of Scotland. That seizure led to the arrest of two Turkish nationals.

Drug trafficking to the United Kingdom is estimated to cost law enforcement £10.7 billion a year, which is about $13.3 billion. The amount of cocaine imported every year is believed to be somewhere between 25-30 tons. And though it’s not very likely that someone will come forward to claim this most recent case of lost drugs, the NCA took the opportunity to have some fun with it.

And you thought your missing luggage was bad… If anyone wants to claim it, we’re keeping it safe for you https://t.co/SVrrG8t30p

— NationalCrimeAgency (@NCA_UK) February 10, 2017

Soon there were a bunch of jokes about the drug find, with some saying they should make a version of the show “Narcos,” and various members of the public suggesting that they could take care of the bags.

@EdmondBeech @NorfolkPolice Somewhere very safe. But the rightful owners can come and collect it anytime

— NationalCrimeAgency (@NCA_UK) February 10, 2017

But the NCA doesn’t take criminal activity lightly.

@EdmondBeech@NorfolkPolice Well not if you aren’t smuggling cocaine into Norfolk or involved in some other serious crime. Are you…?

— NationalCrimeAgency (@NCA_UK) February 10, 2017

Norfolk police urged members of the public to get in touch if they find anything suspicious…or this weird!

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 800 Pounds of Cocaine Wash up on English Coast appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: today marks the beginning of #BlackHistoryMonth. Twitter created a special bot to highlight the occasion, where you learn facts, see content from black creators, and learn about events near you. Check it out, and then read on for today’s rants!

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Pick For the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch

President Donald Trump’s choice for the vacant Supreme Court seat is Judge Neil Gorsuch, a conservative who has similar views to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch, 49, has clerked for two Supreme Court Justices and spent time in D.C. when he was younger; his mother was a high-level official under President Ronald Reagan. He began his legal career by practicing law in D.C. for a decade. Gorsuch is an originalist, which essentially means he believes in interpreting the Constitution as its words were originally understood.

President Trump picks Antonin Scalia 2.0 https://t.co/9MTVuUZtV2 pic.twitter.com/cu1mGkPWAJ

— POLITICO (@politico) February 1, 2017

Now, Republicans are very happy to potentially gain a new conservative justice. But it is likely that Senate Democrats will filibuster, as the Republicans refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, for the position for almost a year. Cue more drama.

via GIPHY

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Ease into this Monday with some of Law Street’s top stories from last week. ICYMI, an Iranian civil rights activist’s hunger strike continues, UK approves CBD for medical use, and an attack on female Mexican politician inspires a misogynistic hashtag. Check out the best of the week below!

1. Imprisoned Iranian Civil Rights Activist Continues Hunger Strike

An Iranian civil rights activist and former college student is in critical condition after going on a hunger strike for over two months. Human rights groups have been urging authorities to do something, but to no avail. Arash Sadeghi stopped eating four months into his own prison sentence to protest the arrest of his wife, Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee, who was imprisoned because of an unpublished novel she wrote. Sadeghi is serving a 15-year sentence on charges of “assembly and collusion against national security,” “propaganda against the state,” “spreading lies in cyberspace,” and “insulting the founder of the Islamic Republic.”

2. UK Officially Classifies CBD Oil as a Medicinal Ingredient

A popular cannabis-based ingredient has officially been classified as medicine in the UK, after healthcare officials scrutinized claims speaking to its effectiveness. The Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) announced earlier this week the addition of cannabidiol, or CBD oil, to its list of medicines after reviewing several manufacturing companies’ “overt medicinal claims” that the product provides relief for patients.

3. Attack on Female Politician in Mexico Leads to Misogynistic Hashtag

A few weeks ago, Mexican senator and former Olympic athlete Ana Gabriela Guevara was severely beaten by a group of men. She was riding her motorcycle in Mexico City when a car rammed into her, seemingly on purpose. Four men got out of the car and started to beat her. She said they hit her in the ribs and the head and insulted her for being a female motorcyclist. Guevara was beaten so badly that she had to be hospitalized. She later posted a photo of herself with a black eye, thanking everyone who had supported her and said that she had recently left the operating room after having surgery.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

A popular cannabis-based ingredient has officially been classified as medicine in the UK, after healthcare officials scrutinized claims speaking to its effectiveness. The Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) announced earlier this week the addition of cannabidiol, or CBD oil, to its list of medicines after reviewing several manufacturing companies’ “overt medicinal claims” that the product provides relief for patients.

Gerald Heddel, director of inspection and enforcement at the agency, told Sky News:

The change really came about with us offering an opinion that CBD is in fact a medicine, and that opinion was based on the fact that we noted that people were making some quite stark claims about serious diseases that could be treated with CBD.

CBD, unlike THC, is a non-psychoactive natural component of marijuana that contains various medical properties, making it an anticonvulsant, antipsychotic, anti-inflammatory, antiemetic, anti-oxidant, anti-depressant, and anti-tumoral. It can be used to treat  a number of medical conditions including epilepsy, ALS, schizophrenia, Parkinson’s disease, and chronic pain. CBD can also be used reduce the intoxicating effects of THC, such as memory impairment and paranoia.

MHRA reversed its stance on CBD just a few month after sending cease and desist letters to CBD producers across the UK. The governmental agency released an assessment that stated:

The MHRA has now completed it’s review and has considered all information available to it relating to Cannabidiol (CBD) and having taken into account all the scientific advice and evidence, it has come to an opinion that products containing Cannabidiol will satisfy the second limb of the definition of a ‘medicinal product’ because it may be used by or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to making a medical diagnosis.

This is the first time a form of cannabis has been seen as medically beneficial to the UK’s government, which could mean a legitimate medical marijuana industry is in the country’s future.

In December, the U.S. reclassified CBD oil as a Schedule 1 Drug under federal law in an effort to track quantities of CBD and other marijuana extracts imported and exported to and from the U.S. separately from quantities of marijuana.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UK Officially Classifies CBD Oil as a Medicinal Ingredient appeared first on Law Street.

Tesco Bank, the British retail bank run by the UK’s largest supermarket chain, lost approximately 2.5 million pounds this month after hackers broke into the accounts of more than 9,000 customers. The bank has pledged to reimburse customers who lost money and ultimately decided to suspend online banking for all of its 136,000 customers. Spokespeople claimed that personal data had not been compromised in the hack and that customers do not need to change their passwords, yet the sheer scope of the attack has made security experts uneasy.

The company first caught on to the breach on Saturday, November 5, and immediately began texting customers who had been affected. Many customers saw their money being moved out of Tesco accounts via overseas transactions to Spain and Brazil. Although there was initial concern that the hack was an inside job, aided by a bank employee, it is now being marked up to general human error and a failure to create a truly secure system.

This attack represents a major modern shift in cybercrime, from attacking individual customers to attacking an entire bank in one go. Perhaps the most troubling discovery in the wake of the hack was that Tesco had been warned by the security firms CyberInt and Codified Security about the weaknesses in its system, which the company did not respond to. No company can be expected to track every spam email about cybersecurity that floods its inbox, but in this case, if the reports from Codified Security truly were purposefully ignored, it reveals a dangerously cavalier attitude toward cybersecurity at the Tesco Bank headquarters.

Defenders of the bank have argued that the hack was successful because it took place during the weekend, when the technical staff were not at their desks, responding to customer reports and warning signs like they would during the work week. Regardless of the timing of the attack, the amount of money shifted from customer accounts is disturbing, especially as it is only the latest in a string of high profile hacks this year. Almost two years ago, the Bank of England highlighted cybercrime in the meetings of its financial policy committee, noting that banks were woefully unprepared for large scale attacks on their databases, but that warning came and went with very little impact.

It is not only smaller, less conventional banks like Tesco that have been targeted: in January of this year, HSBC shut down its mobile banking platform after a distributed denial of service attack. Tesco Bank is a relative mom and pop bank compared to the global behemoth that is HSBC, which explains why it did not have the same early warning notifications and success that HSBC did when shutting down the January hack. No bank, either electronic or brick and mortar, is definitively safe but when hundreds of accounts are being attacked, there is a clear issue with security. Tesco Bank will take a major hit in the wake of the attack but rather than lying back and celebrating the decline of a competitor, other UK banks–and banks around the globe–should be rushing to their own cybersecurity teams to repair the weaknesses that could be exploited in the next great hack.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Startling Holes in Our Cybersecurity Network: The Tesco Bank Hack appeared first on Law Street.

In the Calais refugee camp known as “the Jungle,” 1,500 unaccompanied kids and teenagers are left roaming around on their own. As France and the UK are trying to decide who should do what, the kids are waiting impatiently. Without any adults around to supervise things or provide mental support and a sense of normalcy, many kids are confused, depressed, and frustrated. Boredom often leads to fights and there is often not enough food. The majority of the refugees are boys between 10 and 17 years old, who sleep in cold containers and don’t have drinking water except for when volunteers come to hand out bottles. But there are also around 30 unaccompanied girls, most under 15 but one as young as 12.

No one is allowed into these containers except for security police. But some volunteers work around the clock to provide the kids food–only one hot meal per day–and bottled water. Authorities have only handed out 20 passes in total for volunteers to enter the area, which is not enough considering the amount of help that is needed. Many volunteers hand the kids food through the fence instead.

Whilst the UK and France argue Children are thrown to the Wolves #Calais Write to your MP & Amber Rudd #refugeecommunitykitchen #OLSX pic.twitter.com/QMEPxn7t9I

— Refugee C Kitchen (@RefugeeCKitchen) October 30, 2016

“They’ve left them with no support whatsoever. They’ve just left these 1,500 kids since Friday and gone,” said volunteer Steve Bedlam. He also said the taps have been turned off and the only running water is in the toilets. “This has been confirmed by several of the kids. When we bring water in a truck it goes crazy. People are grabbing at it, like they want to get six bottles.”

Concerned about the children’s safety, the volunteers are now trying to keep some adults around outside of the camp all throughout the night. Lately they have been handing out food from 7 AM to 11 PM, and from the time they leave no grown ups have been present in the camp except for police. Bedlam said:

It’s dangerous. You’ve just literally got 1,500 kids going in and out, wandering around the old burnt out jungle as much as they want. There’s no control, no one stopping them leaving. Thank god for volunteers or it would literally be 1,500 kids sitting in a bombsite.

As winter gets closer and it gets cold, kids are asking the volunteers for shoes and blankets and when they can see their parents, who have often already arrived at their end destination. But there seems to be no information from authorities and no one really knows what is going on. If the kids are heading to other places in France or to the UK remains to be seen and many believe it is just a political problem that no one wants to take responsibility for. “There’s apparently some political system going on, but we have no idea what it is,” said Cecelia Bittner from volunteer organization Calais Kitchens.

#France has failed children in #Calais – @hrw‘s @MichaelBochenek https://t.co/k2P24782Q3 pic.twitter.com/mvcgYBFX1E

— Elaine Pearson (@PearsonElaine) October 31, 2016

France’s president Francois Hollande reportedly phoned Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May on Sunday to ask her to accept more refugee children, which she declined, saying that the UK already had accepted a “considerable number of unaccompanied minors.” The main problem and the most upsetting issue for the volunteers present in Calais is that both the French and British governments have just left these kids unaccompanied in a refugee camp without food and water, locked up and guarded by security police.

“The French government are basically leaving these kids and going ‘we’ve done our bit, come on do your bit’” said Bedlam. “But they’re messing with kids’ lives. It’s not fair. They’re pawns in a political game.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 1,500 Refugee Children Left on Their Own in the Calais “Jungle” appeared first on Law Street.

Politicians threatening to build extravagant walls as a means to prevent refugees from entering the country are not exclusive to the likes of Donald Trump in the United States. Last week British Immigration Minister Robert Goodwill announced that the United Kingdom and France plan to erect an “anti intrusion” barrier in the northern French city of Calais. Projected to span half a mile, stand more than 13 feet tall, and cost over $2.6 million, the purported “Great Wall of Calais” will be funded by the British government to hinder would-be immigrants from illegally crossing the English Channel. The development signifies only a fraction of a $22.7 million collaborative Anglo-Franco project designed to heighten security measures between the two nations.

With construction supposedly beginning later this month, read on to learn about the complicated humanitarian crisis currently unfolding in one of Europe’s largest refugee settlements.

Welcome to the Jungle

On the outskirts of Calais lays a conglomeration of makeshift homes tokened as “The Jungle” due to the dense and oftentimes unpredictable living arrangements. While the French government proclaims the population of this community hovers around 7,000, local activists say the actual number exceeds well over 9,000 and growing daily –with roughly 70 newcomers arriving every day.

Image Courtesy of [malachybrowne via Flickr]

Migrants began to move into the area in 1999 with the formation of the original Sangatte refugee camp. Over the years the spot has emerged as a controversial haven for citizens fleeing Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Despite its closure in 2001 and 2002 by former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, migrants intending to someday relocate to England have resiliently (and perhaps strategically) stayed put. Largely attributed to Calais’ short distance from Dover, England (less than 30 miles away), the settlement predominantly attracts prospective asylum seekers adamant about making the United Kingdom their new home.

Together these men, women, and children live in highly challenging living conditions with minimal resources, not to mention face the constant threat of expulsion and ridicule from the local populace. Ironically enough, the decision to create a buffer between England and France comes after the British government was approached to accept 400 parentless refugee children. Specifically, some children living within the tent city were previously separated from their families, some of whom now reside in England.

In an attempt to solicit a stronger humanitarian response from the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury has proven to be one of the most vocal advocates for reuniting these family units, urging Parliament to expedite the process more efficiently. Today the encampment is experiencing dire food shortages and children prone to malnutrition. Currently the Refugee Community Kitchen says that there isn’t enough donated food remaining to feed all of the residents, meaning some people are being turned away.

How Could England Justify a Wall?

Many migrants in Calais are hesitant to formally register as refugees in France due to their intentions to someday relocate to England–leaving them in “legal limbo” according to a Washington Post article. Since the growing settlement is situated directly across from a major highway, historically it has been plausible for refugees to easily reach the point of crossing over to England. Because of The Jungle’s close proximity to the industrial road leading directly to the channel, some refugees clandestinely hide on trucks and ferries to reach their desired destination.

Regardless of the safety hazards presented, this past July it was estimated that up to 2,000 migrants try to illegally cross the English Channel every night. More specific numbers show that prospective migrants try to sneak into the United Kingdom every six seconds with more than 84,000 border arrests made last year–the majority hailing from Calais. In 2015 the migrant crisis made headlines when approximately 235 illegal migrants bombarded a ferry en route to England.

“People are still getting through,” said Goodwill, who spearheaded the verdict. “We have done the fences. Now we are doing the wall.” 

Logistically speaking, giant slabs of concrete will replace the trajectory of barbed wire already placed along the highway leading to the ferry terminal and underground tunnel to completely cut access. Goodwill rationalized his decision to assemble a wall by claiming it would amplify security in order to dissuade refugees from illegally traveling on England-bound lorries. 

The French Perspective

Certain French officials would put an end to the sprawling camp in a heartbeat. Back in February the French government vowed to dismantle a portion of the encampment that serves as a home for more than 1,000 people. Such animosity intensified recently after 100 migrants broke down a fence to reach the Eurotunnel terminal.

Based on a New York Times report, the prefect for Calais’ administrative department, Fabienne Buccio, is trying to incentivize migrants to abandon such squalor and move into state-run shelters or other immigration centers situated across France.

“I think that it is time to tell the migrants in Calais, who are still living in conditions that are not dignified and that are not desirable: ‘We really have a solution for you, there are no more reasons for you to stay in these conditions,’ ” said Buccio.

Earlier this summer French truck drivers and residents of Calais protested outside the outpost. A fleet of approximately 40 trucks and a number of farming vehicles marched on the highway leading to the waterway. According to the demonstrators, migrants are resorting to hazardous tactics in their pursuit to cross the English Channel. An Al Jazeera video report featured below also discusses how some migrants slashed truck tires to enter large vehicles and hide within the cargo. The CEO of the Calais port, Jean-Marc Puissesseau, expanded upon this trend saying that refugees place tree trucks, branches, and gas cylinders along the road to halt traffic and sneak into vehicles.

“This wall is going to prevent migrants from invading the highway every night,” said Puissesseau. “We can no longer continue to put up with these repeated assaults.”

Protesters also demanded that the French government compensate local businesses for the gradual loss of tourism revenue throughout the region. Locals say that the presence of refugees tarnished the city’s reputation.

Opposition to the Decree

Numerous civil society groups in both England and France have condemned their countries for their unwillingness to provide aid to these individuals forced to flee their homes out of fear of death or persecution. One grassroots organization in England called Worldwide Tribe, for example, aims to fight prejudice against refugees in Calais with compassion.

“We’re not politicians, we don’t pretend to have all the answers, and we’re not charity workers,” said Jasmine O’Hara, a member of the Worldwide Tribe in Calais, in 2015 to The Guardian “We’re just normal people from Kent who want to help our fellow human beings with their basic needs.”

The current circumstances are also soliciting a strong response from certain members of the French Green Party, such as Jean Lambert.

“The decision to build a wall in Calais is the latest wrong move in what is the ongoing scandal of the handling of the plight of refugees in northern France,” said Lambert, who serves as a migration spokeswoman for the British Green Party. “The UK government must get its act together.”

Surprisingly enough, the mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, is dubious of the upcoming project as well. From her perspective, constructing a wall would be frivolous when the city government is determined to shut down the campsite as soon as possible and supposedly assist refugees in finding alternative housing solutions. Even British truck drivers within the UK’s Road Haulage Association disapprove of the recent announcement, calling it a “poor use of taxpayer money.” Some say that funneling funds into better security precautions along the roads (specifically) would be a better investment.

Conclusion

Doctors Without Borders declared that 35 migrants from The Jungle have died while attempting to cross the English Channel. According to the non-profit organization, this proclaimed wall is likely to increase the death toll in the coming months as refugees will try to find alternative methods in reaching England–endangering their lives more so in the process.

“Further investment from the UK in security measures in the area around Calais, prioritizing deterrence over a safe and humane management of the situation, will only further the suffering of those people who remain in deplorable conditions in squalid camps,” said Executive Director of Doctors Without Borders for the British branch, Vickie Hawkins. “So far deterrence measures have not proven that they fulfill their objective, rather they have created a policy-made humanitarian crisis in northern France.”

Resources

The Local: Everything You Need to Know About the Calais Wall

Al Jazeera: UK Slate Over Planned Anti-Refugee Wall in Calais

CNN: UK to Build ‘Big New Wall’ in Calais to Stop Migrants

Redice.TV: Massive Concrete Wall Planned for Calais to Keep Migrants Out of Britain

The Washington Post: Britain and France to Construct ‘Great Wall of Calais’ to Keep Migrants From Port

The New York Times: France to Dismantle Part of Migrant Camp Near Calais

Sputnik News: Building Wall at French Calais Could Cause Humanitarian Crisis in Refugee Camp

The Huffington Post: ‘Great Wall of Calais’ Refugee Migrant Barrier to be Build in France, Robert Goodwill Confirms

BBC News: Why is There a Crisis in Calais?

Reuters: Food Shortages Hit Calais ‘Jungle’ Camp as UK urged to Accept 400 Children

The Independent: Britain to Build 13ft High Wall in Calais to Block Refugees From Entering the UK

Editor’s Note: The post has been edited to reflect that the French government has vowed to dismantle only a portion of the Calais encampment, rather than all of it.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post The “Great Wall of Calais”: The UK’s Controversial Plan to Stop Migrants appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this year a legal battle that spanned twenty years concluded in a major victory for Native American tribes in Washington. “Kennewick Man“–the remains of a 9,000 year old skeleton discovered in 1996–is considered one of the most important archaeological finds in North American history. The skeleton was found on federal land but multiple Native American tribes argued that the skeleton, which was officially determined to be Native American in 2015, belonged on tribal land. Under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Native American tribes are allowed to determine what to do with Native remains–either burying them in a traditional ceremony or displaying them in museum exhibits. Thanks to NAGPRA, many Native American artifacts have been brought back to tribal lands but after centuries of removal–both by individuals and archaeological missions–the work of repatriation has only just begun. Certain museums, most notably the Smithsonian Institution, have striven to catalog and repatriate collections but museums across the United States, and the world, are still in possession of contested artifacts. Take a look at the current state of repatriation.

What is NAGPRA?

NAGPRA, enacted in 1990 after being introduced by noted conservationist Morris Udall, requires organizations that receive federal funding to return Native American cultural artifacts to lineal descendants and affiliated tribes. Federal grant money is dedicated to repatriating artifacts, which can be human remains, sacred objects, or personal possessions. Some sacred objects are still used in modern-day ceremonies so they can be especially important for preserving the heritage of the tribes. Museums are required to keep an up-to-date inventory of all artifacts so that tribes can track them down and initiate the repatriation process. Furthermore, NAGPRA requires that Native American and Native Hawaiian organizations are notified by archaeologists whenever they find or expect to find indigenous cultural items (or when such items are unexpectedly discovered on federal or tribal lands). NAGPRA is incredibly important in the context of disturbing burial grounds. Native American graves were frequently unmarked and there was no protection under state or federal law regarding their exhumation.

NAGPRA also criminalizes the trafficking of Native American remains (without right of possession/legal ownership). In 2003, the FBI returned a host of stolen Native American artifacts valued at over $400,000 on the black market to eight tribes. A well-known art gallery in Santa Fe, New Mexico had been selling the artifacts out of a back room by the gallery owner and a prominent art dealer. NAGPRA was augmented by the National Museum of the American Indian Act Amendments of 1996, which extends repatriation to include “unassociated” objects that are not tied to a particular tribe. The National Museum of the American Indian operates a six-step process for repatriation which has led to the repatriation of more than 2,000 objects to 100 different Native communities throughout North and South America.

Why Kennewick Man Matters

Multiple tribes, including the Umatilla, Colville, Yakima, Wanapum and Nez Perce tribes, have all claimed the remains of Kennewick Man as their own. The remains were found on Umatilla ancestral land, but that does not guarantee that the skeleton was actually of Umatilla descent as multiple tribes visited that land. The tribes have advocated for the skeleton’s immediate reburial, claiming that holding him in a laboratory and museum environment is disrespectful to his memory. Scientists and archaeologists argue that they can learn a great deal from his remains, as his is one of the oldest and most complete skeletons ever discovered on the continent. The first scientists to study the skeleton argued that it lacked “Native American characteristics” which infuriated tribal advocates. Umatilla trustee and religious leader Armand Minthorn told Archaeology that 

If this individual is truly over 9,000 years old, that only substantiates our belief that he is Native American. From our oral histories, we know that our people have been part of this land since the beginning of time….We already know our history

The tribes’ assertion that the skeleton was Native American was often considered to be suspect until a 2015 DNA study found that Kennewick Man’s genome was more closely related to modern Native Americans than any other modern human demographic. The DNA testing was not specific enough to confirm a specific tribe but the groups that have claimed ownership over the skeleton agreed to band together for his burial.

Over the years, Kennewick Man became not only an important artifact but a symbol of the Native American battle for credibility in repatriation. Advocates hope the repatriation of Kennewick Man will hopefully set a precedent for future cases, both in the United States and abroad.

Repatriation Failures at the British Museum

Native Americans are not the only indigenous groups who seek to reclaim their history through repatriation. The British Museum, which houses some of the most incredible collections of artifacts in the world, has frequently been criticized for its failure to return objects to the governments of  former British colonies.

Artifacts from India, Africa, and Australia have become contested since the end of colonialism, as indigenous groups argue that they deserve to display their heritage in their own museums. India has asked for the return of the Kohinoor Diamond, Greece has requested the Elgin Marbles. and the statue Hoa Hakananai’a  still stands in the British Museum rather than its ancestral home of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). The British Museum has launched some repatriation efforts, but is still in possession of thousands upon thousands of contested artifacts. Earlier this year, the British Museum launched an exhibition entitled Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation which stirred controversy over the museum’s ownership of over 6,000 artifacts that were acquired from Indigenous Australian populations during the colonial era. That community is divided in their reaction to the exhibition: some claim that the British preserved objects that otherwise would have been lost or destroyed while others argue that the artifacts, which were often stolen during violent periods of repression, should be sent back to Australia. There are plans for the exhibition to travel to Canberra in November, but the artifacts will be sent under the 2013 Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Act, which blocks the repatriation process while the artifacts are on Australian soil. Shane Mortimer, an elder of the Ngambri people, stated that

If the Ngambri people went to England, killed 90 percent of the population and everything else that is indigenous to England and sent the crown jewels back to Ngambri Country as a prize exhibit … what would the remaining 10 percent of English people have to say about that? The exhibition should not proceed without the permission of the owners of all of the items.

Conclusion

The repatriation of artifacts and human remains is a battle that has been fought for decades yet is far from over. Certain archaeologists argue that artifacts need to be preserved in major museums in order to share history with future generations. The idea that a skeleton discovered on an archaeological dig might be buried once again (according to tribal custom) is seen as irresponsible and distasteful. However, advocates for the Native population believe that repatriating artifacts will do much more to preserve culture than holding them in a museum and that the burial of human remains is a sign of respect.

There is no doubt that museums are invaluable to preserving our history but we cannot ignore the fact that a majority of their collections were taken without permission and artifacts are essentially being held hostage under the guise of preservation. There are museums that have engaged in extensive repatriation–the National Museum of the American Indian, for example, has fewer than 300 human remains in its collection, most of which have yet to be claimed by South American tribes–so the process is clearly feasible. Repatriation is a reaction to theft, not preservation, and indigenous tribes deserve support as they try to reclaim their history.

Resources

Primary

National Park Service: NAGPRA

National Museum of the American Indian:  Act Amendments of 1996

National Museum of the American Indian: Repatriation

Additional

NewHistorian: Kennewick Man Will Return Home to Native American Tribes

Annenberg Classroom: Who should own Native American artifacts?

National Geographic: When Is It Okay to Dig Up the Dead?

Smithsonian Magazine: Over 9,000 Years Later, Kennewick Man Will Be Given a Native American Burial

The Guardian: Rreservation or plunder? The battle over the British Museum’s Indigenous Australian show

NDTV: London Point Of View: Give Back Kohinoor? Fat Chance!

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Stolen Identities: The Repatriation of Indigenous Artifacts appeared first on Law Street.

More than 30,000 Ahmadi Muslims from around the world came together in Hampshire, England over the weekend to reject the violence committed by ISIS and other terrorist groups. The three-day convention, called Jalsa Salana, is a 50-year long tradition for members of the Ahmadiyya Islamic movement.

On Sunday, the last day of the convention, participants raised Britain’s Union flag and repeated their condemnation of violence and extremism. The community’s worldwide Caliph, His Holiness Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, led the members through a prayer as they pledged their loyalty to their home country.

Speaking before the convention started last week, he said:

The only thing the terrorists are achieving is to completely violate the teachings of the Holy Quran and of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Let it be clear that they are not practicing Islam, rather it seems as though they have invented their own hate-filled and poisonous religion.

Ahmadiyya U.K. tweeted this powerful picture from inside the convention hall.

..30K Muslims converge for Britain’s biggest annual Islamic gathering to reject violence.. https://t.co/0YtGB0t1bRpic.twitter.com/ai6ej7xl8d

— Ahmadiyya UK (@AhmadiyyaUK) August 15, 2016

The Ahmadiyya movement was founded in India in 1889 and has the motto “Love for all, hatred for none.” The President of the U.K. branch, Rafiq Hayat, told the Independent:

The 30,000 plus people from over 90 countries gathering at the convention come in the spirit of fraternity–and to give thanks for the security and freedom they have found in Britain.

He emphasized that many had fled persecution in their home countries and have much to be grateful to Britain for.

But orthodox Muslims see the movement as heretical for having a different view on Muhammad. In March, an orthodox Muslim man killed a man belonging to the Ahmadiyya branch because he thought he had disrespected Islam.

At the closing ceremony on Sunday, Prime Minister Theresa May expressed her sympathy for the man’s death and praised the Ahmadiyya movement for its compassion and commitment to peace. She said, “Your motto–‘love for all, hatred for none’–shines from all you do. It is a message we would all do well to live by, especially as we build a stronger, more united future.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 30,000 Ahmadi Muslims Gather to Reject Violence and Extremism appeared first on Law Street.

Britain has a new prime minister after Andrea Leadsom announced her exit from the race Monday morning. Theresa May, the 59-year-old home secretary, will replace David Cameron as the leader of the United Kingdom. Soon after Leadsom signaled her exit Monday morning, it became clear that few barriers still stood in May’s way.

First, Leadsom cleared the way for May to be the last woman standing, and the last candidate in a field that dwindled from five to two over the past few weeks. “Strong leadership is needed urgently to begin the work of withdrawing from the European Union,” Leadsom said Monday morning, reading from a letter addressed to the chairman of the 1922 committee (a group of influential lawmakers in the Conservative Party), Graham Brady. “[Theresa May] is ideally placed to implement Brexit on the best possible terms for the British people.”

So grateful for all the support – I do believe my decision is in the best interests of the country and our economy & I wish Theresa success!

— Andrea Leadsom MP (@andrealeadsom) July 11, 2016

Then, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson–two supporters of the “Leave” campaign that successfully sparked Britain’s exit from the European Union—voiced their support for May. Finally, once it became apparent that she would become his successor, Cameron read a statement in support of May, and said he would officially step down as prime minister on Wednesday. “I am delighted that Theresa May will be the next prime minister,” he said, calling her “strong, competent and more than capable.”

And at five o’clock Monday evening, May was officially coronated as the leader of the Conservative Party and prime minister of Britain. She paid tribute to her former opponents as well as Cameron, and said she was “[honored] and humbled to have been chosen by the Conservative party to become its leader.” Her statement continued:

During this campaign my case has been based on three things. First, the need for strong, proven leadership to steer us through what will be difficult and uncertain economic and political times, the need, of course, to negotiate the best deal for Britain in leaving the EU, and to forge a new role for ourselves in the world. Brexit means Brexit, and we are going to make a success of it.

Her second and third tenets, she said, will be to unite the country and make sure it works “not for the privileged few but that works for everyone one of us.” May will be the second female prime minister in Britain’s history, and the first since Margaret Thatcher, who led the UK from 1979 to 1990. In the months preceding Britain’s exit from the EU, May supported the “Stay” camp, though she did not project her stance as vigorously or vocally as other candidates. In her first official statement as prime minister and in remarks she gave earlier in the day, before Leadsom dropped out, May reiterated the fact that “Brexit means Brexit.” There would not be a second referendum, she said. 

Not everyone in Parliament is unanimously in support of May, however. Three parties–Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens–are calling for a general election, saying that the Conservative Party no longer has the mandate to govern since its leader, Cameron, resigned. The next scheduled general election is in 2020, five years after the Conservative Party won its parliamentary majority in 2015. 

With @TheresaMay2016‘s coronation we need an early General Election. The Tories now have no mandate. Britain deserves better than this.

— Tim Farron (@timfarron) July 11, 2016

But dissent from opposing parties will do little to halt the ascent of Britain’s newly minted leader, at least for the next four years: Prime Minister Theresa May. 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Day In the UK: Theresa May Is the First Female PM In 26 Years appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories on Law Street included a collection of the best tweets from the trending hashtag #MoreTurstedThanHillary, a rundown of everything you need to know about the recent Dallas police shooting, and a report critiquing former U.K. Prime Minster Tony Blair’s decision to join the invasion of Iraq. ICYMI–Check out these top stories below.

1. #MoreTrustedThanHillary Trend Takes Twitter by Storm

In the wake of the FBI announcement recommending that Hillary Clinton not be charged for her use of a personal email server during her time as secretary of state, people are outraged. To express their frustration, many have taken to twitter, tweeting nasty messages about Clinton and her race to the White House. The biggest trend right now is a hashtag that has people asking what untrustworthy things are more trustworthy than the presumptive democratic nominee. From cartoon conch shells to burns of political figures, the jokes on twitter will have you either cringing at their crude nature or crying tears of laughter. Without further ado, here are the top tweets following the trend of asking what really is #moretrustedthanhillary? Read the full article here.

2. Nightmare in Dallas: What You Need to Know

It has been a long, bloody week in America. Following the killing of two black men by police in Louisiana and Minnesota earlier this week, protests sprung up across the country. In Dallas on Thursday night, a peaceful protest turned violent when shots rang out at about 8:45 pm. As a fuller picture of what happened develops over the coming days, read on for details on what we know, what we don’t know, and how Thursday’s tragic episode fits into a larger historical perspective. Read the full article here.

3. Report Blasts Tony Blair, UK Government’s Handling of Iraq War

A report conducted by a five-member panel concluded that while the U.K.’s policy on the Iraq War was erroneous and costly, it was not illegal. The Iraq Inquiry, a seven year undertaking, was launched in 2009 by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The 6,000 page report sought to determine if the Iraq invasion was “right and necessary” and “whether the U.K. could–and should–have been better prepared for what followed,” according to a statement by Sir John Chilcot, the retired civil servant who spearheaded the effort. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below: 

‘Trump’ Is Now A Verb in Mexico

Mexicans have responded to Trump’s presidential candidacy with their own brand of satire and turned his name into a verb meaning “to punch.” Apparently it is a trend in Mexico to turn things they hate into caricatures. For example, the state of Chihuahua has created a popular Trump taco, made with tongue, pig snout, and cow brain. Way to go Mexico! What a great way to deal with haters.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 24, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Banksy is a famous graffiti artist, political activist, and film director whose “real” identity has never been released. For years, there has been rampant speculation about who exactly Banksy is, but his true name has remained under wraps at least in part because graffiti is still a crime. However, his identity may now be easier to figure out than ever before, thanks to some British criminologists who have tested a new system of “geographic profiling” to help catch serial offenders.

Geographic profiling is not new–in fact you’ve probably seen some early derivations of it on your favorite crime procedural. At its most basic, it can be used to pinpoint origins of all sorts of things, including disease outbreaks. When applied to criminology, it can be used to pinpoint serial offenders, by taking crime scenes and then using mathematical formulas to map where an offender may live or frequent.

Researchers at Queen Mary University of London have been trying to create improved versions of geographic profiling, and in order to test their new system, inputted incidences of Banksy’s graffiti in both London and Bristol. The formula spit back the name Robin Gunningham, which shouldn’t really surprise Banksy fans because Gunningham’s name has come up as a Banksy suspect before. The researchers published these findings in the Journal of Spatial Science. However, they were clear to point out that they didn’t think that their method was going to work as well as it did. Steve Le Comber, one of the authors of the study, stated:

What I thought I would do is pull out the 10 most likely suspects, evaluate all of them and not name any… But it rapidly became apparent that there is only one serious suspect, and everyone knows who it is.

As with almost any application of academia, there have been criticisms of the study, including the fact that the researchers didn’t include some outliers, and that because Banksy’s work is anonymous, they could have unknowingly included copycats. And Le Comber and the other researchers are careful to say that Banksy is not definitely Gunningham, but just that their research offers additional support for the theory.

After the findings of the study became known, Bansky’s legal team contacted the researchers, apparently taking some issue with a press release that was going to accompany the study’s journalistic publication. That press release has since been yanked. The paper itself, which apparently Banksy’s legal team did not take issue with, was published Thursday.

The researchers’ findings certainly don’t prove anything definitively about who Bansky actually is–but the fact that they match up with a man who has been accused of being Banksy before isn’t a coincidence. This look into Banksy’s identity was certainly an interesting application of geographic profiling, but if this kind of technology works it could have a huge impact on tracking serial offenders of much more vicious crimes.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Statistics Meet Art: British Scientists May Have Tracked Down Banksy appeared first on Law Street.

Everyone knows the shape of a KitKat bar–but can Nestle (KitKat’s parent company) legally keep people from replicating it? According to a British judge, the KitKat shape can’t be trademarked–the decision was just handed down earlier this week.

Apparently this has been a long legal saga in Europe, with Nestle bringing attempts to trademark the KitKat shape to both the British High Court and the European Court of Justice. Nestle first tried to trademark the shape back in 2010, in an attempt to keep competitors, particularly Cadbury, from making chocolate bars in similar shapes.

However, Judge Arnold of Britain’s High Court ruled that the shape of KitKat hadn’t “acquired a distinctive character” to the point where it could be trademarked. The big legal question was whether or not someone could look at a KitKat bar and know what it was, even without any distinctive markings or packaging. Judge Arnold pointed out that Nestle had never promoted the shape when marketing the KitKat bar, and the bar’s wrapping obscures the shape. He stated in his ruling that while the shape may be distinctive, it isn’t the only thing that consumers use to identify the candy bar, stating:

In these circumstances it seems likely that consumers rely only on the word mark KitKat and the other word and the pictorial marks used in relation to the goods in order to identify the trade origin of the products. They associate the shape with KitKat (and therefore with Nestlé), but no more than that.

The idea of trademarked a candy bar shape isn’t totally crazy though; some cases have been successful in the past. For example, Toblerone, which does have a distinctive mountain-like look, has been able to trademark its shape.

This case also wasn’t the first time that European candy companies have gone head-to-head over seemingly arbitrary intellectual property claims. In 2013, Nestle and Cadbury tussled in court over Cadbury’s attempt to trademark the shade of purple it uses for its chocolate wrappers. Cadbury wasn’t successful at that attempt, either.

So for now, it seems like the case of the KitKat shape is decided (at least in European courts) but Nestle is promising to appeal the suit. At this point though…”Gimme a break.“

Update: An earlier version of this post used the term “copyright” instead of “trademark.” The language has been updated.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post British Judge Rules Nestle Can’t Trademark the KitKat Shape appeared first on Law Street.

First, Donald Trump wanted to ban Mexicans. “Build a wall” he said, and make the Mexican government pay for it. And despite the long list of inherent problems with said plan, a large number of people rejoiced at this supposed fix for America’s “immigration problem.”

Now, Trump has moved on from just banning nationalities and has opted for religions as well. On Monday, the current leader in the race for the Republican presidential nomination voiced that he would call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” until we can “figure out what’s going on.” That’s right folks, all Muslims. 

Watch Trump’s Comments Below

These seemingly unconstitutional comments marked a swift change from Trump’s usual anti-Muslim rhetoric, quickly distancing the mogul from his GOP counterparts. Now politicians, celebrities, and entire countries are coming out in droves to denounce Trump’s statements and even ban him from certain parts of the globe.

People for Banning Trump

Several American mayors have begun voicing the desire to ban Trump from entering their respective cities–despite having no legal power to actually do so. St. Petersburg, Florida’s Mayor Rick Kriseman announced the decree on Twitter and Sunnyvale, California’s Mayor Jim Griffith quickly followed suit. Kriseman told NBC News on Tuesday that he felt Trump’s statement deserved an equally “ridiculous” response.

I am hereby barring Donald Trump from entering St. Petersburg until we fully understand the dangerous threat posed by all Trumps.

— Rick Kriseman (@Kriseman) December 8, 2015

Ya know, I think Mayor Kriseman is on to something here… https://t.co/txdhBwBlFS — Mayor Jim Griffith (@JimGriffith_SV) December 8, 2015

It’s not just Americans hoping to ban Trump. As of this afternoon, a petition to prohibit Trump from entering the UK has reached 200,000 signatures and is climbing. The petition first went up on Parliament’s website Tuesday, and only needed 100,000 signatures in order to be automatically considered for debate in Parliament.

The GOP Takes a Stand

Many in the Republican Party wasted no time informing the public that Trump’s statement was not indicative of the party as whole. Speaker Paul Ryan was praised after holding a press conference where he simply stated “this is not conservatism.” Fellow presidential hopefuls Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich also called the proposal “unhinged,” “offensive,” and “outrageous” on social media.

Donald Trump is unhinged. His “policy” proposals are not serious.

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) December 7, 2015

I disagree with Donald Trump’s latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 8, 2015

pic.twitter.com/noMfFeL3vq

— John Kasich (@JohnKasich) December 7, 2015

Emotional Response

New York Daily News took a more emotionally charged stance on the offensive proposal in the form of a political cartoon comparing Trump to Hitler on Wednesday’s cover. The cartoon was modeled after Pastor Martin Niemöller famous poem, “First They Came,” and drew similarities to Nazi Germany.

Today’s @NYDailyNews cover accompanied by an emotional guest column about @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Ue4IXx97gr pic.twitter.com/X9xLdSlaYG — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) December 9, 2015

The Downright Hilarious

However, J.K. Rowling proved she is the master of all things Twitter yet again, with one single tweet that perfectly captured what everyone else was thinking.

How horrible. Voldemort was nowhere near as bad. https://t.co/hFO0XmOpPH — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) December 8, 2015

Even though politicians, countries, and celebrities are strongly against Trump becoming the next president of the United States, a large portion of America still seems to love him. It appears that the more outrageous the statement, the better Trump polls, and his ability to capture the approval of non-traditional voters has proved he’s more than just a sideshow, he’s an actual contender. But will people finally say “enough is enough” when Trump starts condemning more nationalities, ethnic groups, and religions?

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Reactions to Trump’s Idiotic Plan to Block Muslims From Entering U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

A large international study conducted by the British think tank and policy institute Chatham House has determined that taxing meat wouldn’t cause as much of an uproar as previously believed. The motivations of such a tax would be that it would promote healthier eating, as well as serve as an attempt to combat climate change.

Chatham House’s study surveyed 12 different nations and also conducted focus groups in the U.S., U.K., Brazil, and China. They were attempting to determine how people would react to government policies like higher taxes on meat, as well as cutting subsidies to livestock farmers and introducing more vegetarian meals in public institutions like schools. While they discovered there would be a backlash to these policies in many scenarios–people love their meat–it will most likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for the policies was strong.

This is an important finding, as steps to reduce global consumption of meat may need to be taken soon. The production of livestock is responsible for 15 percent of global emissions–more than the world’s cars, trains, planes, and ships combined. It’s going to get worse, too, as global meat consumption is expected to rise roughly 76 percent over the next 35 years. When countries become richer, they’re more likely to consume more meat. And countries that already consume a lot of meat aren’t really doing so safely. Developed countries eat on average, twice as much meat than what’s considered healthy. Americans are also big offenders–we on average eat roughly three times as much meat as what’s considered healthy. But because of that love of meat, it has traditionally been viewed as a bad move politically to create meat taxes or make it more expensive in any way.

But Chatham House’s research stands in contrast to that hypothesis. Chatham House lead author Laura Wellesley said:

The idea that interventions like this are too politically sensitive and too difficult to implement is unjustified. Our focus groups show people expect governments to lead action on issues that are for the global good. Our research indicates any backlash to unpopular policies would likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for action was strong.

When discussing the possibility of a meat tax, a consistent comparison that’s being made is the evolution of taxation on cigarettes. Once commonplace higher taxes on cigarettes as well as public service campaigns helped decrease the amount of smokers.

While it’s doubtful that we’ll all be taxed on our meat anytime soon, it may be something that’s brought up at the UN Climate Change conference in Paris next week. So, if you’re big meat fan, this may be something to keep an eye on.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Next Turkey Day, Will We Have a Meat Tax? appeared first on Law Street.

In a news story making waves across the UK, a man has been arrested and charged with four murders. He is accused of using the popular gay dating and hook up app Grindr as a means to find his victims.

Stephen Port, 40, of East London, has been linked to the deaths of four different young gay men.

Google News: Stephen Port charged with four murders in Barking – BBC News http://t.co/Fn7ikac1Oz

— Ciscaucasia (@ciscaucasia) October 19, 2015

All four were found in the yard of a church and died as the result of high doses of GHB. GHB, sometimes called “liquid ecstasy” is best known as a date-rape drug. It suppresses the central nervous system. In large doses, it can be fatal.

The first victim, Anthony Patrick Walgate, 23, was discovered in June 2014. Then Gabriel Kovari, 22, was found in August 2014, and Daniel Whitworth, 21, was found in September. The final victim, Jack Taylor, 25, was found this September. Their professions ranged from working at a warehouse to studying fashion. Port allegedly met all four of them on “gay dating websites,” such as popular mobile app Grindr. According to police, he then brought them back to his apartment before giving them GHB. It’s unclear whether he intended to kill his victims, or just drug them. If he did intend to kill them, it is also unclear what his motive was.

Even more strangely, at least two of the victims appear to have been connected. Kovari and Whitworth, who were killed just one month apart knew each other, and according to some sources, may have been in a relationship. Allegedly, when Whitworth was found, there was a note in his hand that claimed that he had killed Kovari. Why Port planted that note–possibly to send the police in the wrong direct–is yet another facet of this case that has yet to be solved.

Port appeared in court and was charged with the killings on Monday. He has been officially charged with four counts of murder, as well as four counts of administering a poison with intent to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm.

For many, this story may appear as a clear “I told you so” when it comes to the use of dating/hook up apps like Grindr or Tinder. That being said, while one should always use caution when meeting up with someone they’ve met through technological means, this is clearly a particularly tragic and terrifying isolated incident.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the UK Home to a Grindr Serial Killer? appeared first on Law Street.

Despite China’s strong and consistent economic growth, there have been two areas that are clearly understood to be American-dominated spheres–military and finance. While America still holds a large lead over other countries in terms of military power–at least based on money spent–that other sphere of power may be waning. Although China has long been dismissed as lacking in infrastructure and innovation, that belief is likely about to change. With the formation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China is throwing itself into the financial arena. Read on to learn about China’s latest push for superpower status that has the potential to change the global financial system that has been in place since WWII, and casts into question the future of who controls the world’s purse strings.

History of the Current System

The history of the modern financial system began in 1944. While WWII still raged, representatives from the Allied powers met to decide the future of the global financial system. The result of this was the Bretton Woods Agreement, named after the town in New Hampshire where the meeting was held.

Bretton Woods Agreement

This agreement essentially pegged global currencies to the U.S. dollar. Countries were required to maintain a fixed exchange rate with the U.S., buying up dollars if their currency was too low and printing more money if their currency’s value was too high. It was a basic concept of supply and demand, but with physical currency.

This, in effect, made the United States the preeminent global economic world power. It also relied on the relationship between U.S. dollars and gold, because the dollar itself was tied to a gold standard. However, the Bretton Woods system came crashing down in 1971 when the U.S. experienced something known as stagflation–when a country simultaneously sees a recession and inflation–and was forced to abandon the gold standard. In an unforeseen result, the rising demand for the dollar had made it more valuable even though its value was pegged to a certain amount of gold. The resulting disparity led to shortage and the need to scrap the existing system. Despite the end of the Bretton Woods system, two of its guarantor agencies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, survived and continue to this day.

The IMF

The IMF was created as part of the Bretton Woods agreement. Its original purpose was to help countries adjust their balance of payments with regard to the dollar, which was the reserve currency. Once the gold standard was abandoned, the IMF offered members a variety of floating currency options, excluding pegging the value of currency to gold. Additionally, the 1970s saw the beginning of the Structural Adjustment Facilities, which are loans out of a trust fund offered by the IMF to countries. The IMF was instrumental in guiding a number of countries, particularly developing ones, through a series of crises including the oil shocks in the 1970s and the financial crisis in 2008.

World Bank

The World Bank was originally known as the International Bank for Reconstruction when it was created as part of the Bretton Woods Agreement. Initially, the bank was created to help with reconstruction in Europe, with its first loan going to France in 1947. However, over time and following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, it has changed its focus to fighting poverty. The World Bank’s footprint has also expanded from a single office in Washington, D.C., to offices all over the world, and it is now made up of five different development institutions. Like the IMF, it has also tackled issues as they have arisen over the decades, such as social and environmental challenges.

Criticisms of the IMF and World Bank

Although the IMF and World Bank have survived for more than 70 years, they have faced extremely harsh criticism. The IMF has been criticized far and wide. Mostly the criticisms boil down to the conditions upon which the IMF grants loans. Namely, many people believe the IMF intervenes too much in a country’s operations by forcing it to meet arduous standards before it will be given a loan. The problem here is there is no one-size-fits-all way for countries to operate and the parameters the IMF sets are sometimes seen as more detrimental to a country than its existing financial situation. There are also accusations of supporting corrupt regimes and a lack of transparency.

The World Bank faces several of these same criticisms and more. On top of not taking into account individual local situations, the World Bank has also been criticized for enforcing a de facto Washington consensus along with the IMF. In other words, by controlling the money, the World Bank and IMF can force countries to do what Washington wants. Additionally, the World Bank and IMF have been accused of helping large corporations at the expense of poor and developing nations. In particular, the debt associated with the loans, has left many recipients mired in a perpetual state of debt and therefore beholden to the IMF and World Bank structure.

The video below offers a detailed explanation of Bretton Woods, the IMF, World Bank, and the criticisms they face.

 The Asian Infrastructure Bank

With the existing state of finance the way it is, it comes as little surprise that China and other nations who do not agree with many American policies would seek to create their own institutions of last resort. This indeed is what China, India, and a number of other smaller countries now intend to do. This has led to the creation of the Asian Infrastructure investment Bank, or AIIB. Although the details of the bank are still murky it will essentially be a clone of the World Bank.

Aside from differing with the U.S. over policy, China and other nations are also upset over representation within the World Bank and IMF. The way the system is currently set up, an American is traditionally in charge at the World Bank and a European at the IMF.

The video below explains what the AIIB is, what it means for the U.S., and how it will impact the existing system.

With Friends Like These

While it is not that shocking that a rising country like China desires its own system and to be free of the constraints placed upon it by the United States and its allies, several other countries that have been quick to sign up for the AIIB have been surprising. These nations included a number of traditional American allies including Germany, France, the U.K., and South Korea. Nevertheless, while it is still unclear what these countries hope to gain from membership, the fact that they would willingly flout American criticisms and join with China is certainly a diplomatic blow.

Progress on the AIIB

Whereas China’s new bank appears as a smack in the face to the U.S., there is still much to be decided. First of all, there was already an Asian Development Bank, so if anything the AIIB seems to be replacing that more than the World Bank or IMF. Additionally and most importantly, the AIIB has not actually been created yet, so all these defections and statements are just plans, not concrete actions. Furthermore, while countries were upset at and critical of the IMF and World Bank as being puppets of U.S. interest, this new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is seemingly being designed specifically to make China its unquestioned leader. Thus it bears watching how long countries want to suffer under China’s yoke and if the grass really is much greener.

There are other projects in the works as well. The U.S. has a new trade proposal of its own for the Asian Pacific that would also aid in the development of infrastructure. The following video shows how the IMF and other groups plan to work with the AIIB in the future financial environment.

Conclusion

America’s position as the global hegemon seems increasingly to be challenged in every facet from sports to entertainment to now finance. For roughly 70 years America has been the guarantor of the world’s economy; however, that is beginning to change as revealed by its inability to prevent the financial crisis in 2008 and through tests from other countries such as China. The U.S. therefore, may have to adjust to its new position in a world, where it wields less control and enjoys less prestige. The only lingering question then is not if this degradation of power will occur, but how will the U.S. respond to it?

Resources

Primary

International Monetary Fund: History

World Bank: History

Additional

About News: Bretton Woods System and 1944 Agreement

Vox: How a Chinese Infrastructure Bank Turned into a Diplomatic Disaster for the United States

Economics Help: Criticism of the IMF

Globalization 101: Why the World Bank is So Controversial

Financial Times: Superpowers Circle Each Other in Contest to Control Asia’s Future

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Threat to the Financial System? appeared first on Law Street.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that a large swath of the Pacific Ocean in British territory will be delineated for protection. Focusing around the Pitcairn Islands in the center of the South Pacific, this reserve will be larger than California and represents a very momentous step forward in conservation.

Beneath the unassuming Pitcairn Island lies an aquatic wonderland. Courtesy of Fotorus via Flickr.

The marine habitat in this region is a thriving and delicate ecosystem. Due to its remoteness, human impact has been minimal; scientists are under the impression that there exist here a substantial number of species yet to be discovered. Furthermore, there are coral reefs, submerged mountains, and water quality of a cleanliness difficult to match elsewhere on Earth.

Prior to the designation as a reserve, threats to the health of the place loomed as illegal fishing activity has been drawing near in recent years. Seafloor mining is also now out of the equation. Old fashioned, low-scale fishing by the 60 or so residents of Pitcairn Island itself, most widely known as the settlement site of the mutineers in Mutiny on the Bounty, will be permitted.

So why is protecting this region such a big deal? First of all, for the sake of the locals and for the British government, the pristine, beautiful region is now guaranteed to remain so, and tourism is expected to increase. The Pitcairn Island is so remote that it is not often that people venture down there. In fact, National Geographic Explorer Enric Sala pointed out that between boats and planes it takes most people longer to arrive there than at the Moon. But applying this protective title increases its appeal. Furthermore, the loss of about $30,000 per year in fishing licenses would be easily recovered by tourist revenue and the benefits of being designated an Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Palmyra Atoll in the Central Pacific. Courtesy of USFWS-Pacific Region/Jim Maragos via Flickr.

Anything that can be done to preserve the health of an ecosystem is desirable. Just because the region around the Pitcairn Island is remote does not mean that any damage it might suffer would not affect other areas on the planet. We have already seen how human beings themselves, in addition to both aquatic and land-bound biodiversity, face threats from accumulating plastic in the oceans. A complex chain of relationships means that even a slight disturbance can cover large geographic and biological distances.

It is more difficult to think of a distant and highly inaccessible portion of the ocean as needing protection from humans, or as being vulnerable to human activity, as it is to regard portions of the land such as rainforests or mountain ranges as such. While we more easily and often see the consequences of our actions on land, we are more detached from the oceans and conditions in the water, both geographically and mentally. For this former reason, the last century has seen the creation of a wealth of national parks, UNESCO biosphere reserves, and vocal conservation organizations. These policies have done many great things to advocate for the health of the land, but only just recently have these motivations extended to the seas.

Marine reserves are oceanic equivalents of national parks. They are protected areas, encourage people to come see their beauty, and make statements as to the importance of our environments. The new Pitcairn reserve represents one of the largest manifestations of that sentiment, spreading environmental awareness and conservation to the farthest corners, yet equally interconnected, portions of the globe.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Part of the Pacific is Being Legally Protected; Here’s Why It’s Important appeared first on Law Street.

In a lot of ways it’s easier than ever for students to cheat on exams. Many students now have small handheld devices that we can use to access pretty much the whole of human knowledge–I’m talking about smartphones, of course. Smartphones have been banned from our classrooms, particularly during exam time, since they became popular. But now schools are trying to keep up by banning the latest form of mobile technology: smartwatches. For some schools, the easiest way to do that is to ban watches altogether.

Right now, the bans on watches seem to be catching on in the United Kingdom, with the University of London and London’s City University both banning the accessory.

It makes total sense that a school would want to ban smartwatches. They could obviously be used to store notes or cheat sheets that could be pulled up with just a flick of the finger. But it goes further than that–the whole idea of the technology is that it acts as a sort of extension of a smartphone. You can set them up so they give you certain notifications–for example, emails, or text messages. So, you could have a friend text you information at a particular time. Or, more simply, set up a timed email or message to send you information at a particular time during your test. Depending on what watch you have, you could also look up information during the test itself.

Some schools have banned the smartwatches themselves. Weber State University, for example, a college in Utah, has banned smartwatches during tests. It’s not just colleges, either. The College Board, the organization that runs SAT testing, has already banned them as well.

Why would schools ban all wrist watches though, in the hopes of catching just a few students who have smartwatches and hope to use them to cheat? Well, smartwatches look pretty snazzy, pretty much like real watches. If you’re not familiar with a smartwatch, as some professors may not be, it would be difficult to figure it out by just glancing at the device. It would also be a tough task for professors who teach large lecture halls with hundreds of students, and end up being a waste of time.

That being said, I think there are definitely downsides to a ban on watches as well. For one, it’s a pretty common accessory–it would be easy to forget to take off a watch the day of an exam. Secondly, any classrooms that banned watches would basically have to ensure that a clock is present in the classroom. Being able to manage time effectively is an important testing skill–many professors design tests that will take up more time than the class is allotted, if you aren’t careful. While banning watches may prevent incidental cases of cheating, it’s simpler said than done.

This is yet another example of the ways in which technology, while great, can run straight into commonsense rules. While smartwatches certainly are a threat to the integrity of our classrooms, schools will have to be very careful when it comes to figuring out the right way to mitigate that danger.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Smartwatch Scare: Will Schools Ban Watches to Prevent Cheating? appeared first on Law Street.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are all principles on which the United States was founded. Now, in my book, there’s one thing that fits very firmly into the happiness category: chocolate. So when I learned that my ability to get certain types of chocolate–particularly chocolate imported from the United Kingdom–has been hampered, I got pretty upset. After all, it’s my liberty to stuff my face with lots of chocolatey goodness, and it affects my life if I cannot do so.

The main conveyer of food from the UK to the US is called Let’s Buy British Imports (LBB). LBB just made a settlement with the American Hershey’s Company to stop importing Cadbury products. Cadbury is a British chocolate manufacturer, and if you’ve never had anything Cadbury-made, you’re missing out, because it’s damn delicious. Its most recognizable product in the U.S. is probably the Cadbury egg, but there are plenty of different variations of Cadbury sold, especially at specialty shops.

The settlement came from a claim by Hershey’s that the packaging on the chocolate made by Cadbury looked too much like some of Hershey’s, and that selling them in the United States infringed on trademark and licensing issues. It won’t just be Cadbury that won’t be imported any more, British-made KitKats are also going to be left across the pond, as well as a few other choice British sweets.

While this won’t make it illegal to have Cadbury in the US, or anything of that magnitude, sellers of the delicious creations will have a very hard time being able to stock the candy. It’s possible to import chocolate yourself, but it is very difficult to do so, given all the Food and Drug Administration and custosm hoops that require jumping through.

Those of you who have never been blessed with the pure magic that is Cadbury are probably wondering: what’s the big deal? Isn’t it just chocolate? Can’t you just eat some Hershey’s and call it a day, you weird, sugar-addicted freak?

Cadbury really is better than American chocolate. There is a legitimate, scientifically proven difference in taste. It tends to be higher in fat than American chocolate and focuses more on using milk than sugar. As Tatiana Schlossberg of The New York Times realized after a rather informal taste test:

The British Dairy Milk was slightly fudgier, allowing for a creamier taste and texture. The American Dairy Milk bar left a less pleasing coating and somewhat of a stale aftertaste.

In addition, the Telegraph pointed out:

a Hershey bar contains only 11 percent cocoa, while a British-made Dairy Milk bar – hardly a gourmet product – contains almost twice as much cocoa, at 20 per cent.

So, it’s probably not just a packaging concern on Hershey’s part. Cadbury chocolate tastes better, and has a pretty devoted following.

Most upsettingly, we’ll still see “Cadbury” on our shelves. Unfortunately it will be knockoff version, as Hershey’s has a deal to produce Cadbury products with altered recipes. Talk about adding insult to injury.

—

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No More Cadbury Chocolate For You appeared first on Law Street.

The violence in Paris several weeks ago united Europe as little else has in recent years. Plagued by economic decline, some of the more prosperous nations have voiced discontent with the state of the European Union. Partly leading this surge is a wave of far-right political movements. These nationalist movements are gaining traction from Berlin to Paris to London as people tire of stagnant economic growth and demands for bail outs.

Additionally in many of these countries, a dramatic demographic change is occurring in which traditional peoples and cultures are finding themselves increasingly co-habitating with people who have different beliefs and practices. Read on to learn about the political shift and rise of right-wing groups in Europe after years of economic concerns and changing demographics in the region.

History of the European Union

The European Union, unsurprisingly, traces its roots to the aftermath of WWII. With the continent in ruins, several representatives from leading nations attempted to finally find some way to unify the region and put an end to the seemingly endless fighting that had just led to the most destructive war the world has ever known.

The process started with the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, which had six founding members: West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. These six nations agreed to unite their coal and steel production. The foundation was built up further with the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which created the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1967 the European Parliament was created and in 1979 it had its first direct elections.

The European Union itself was codified in 1993 through the Treaty of Maastricht. In 2002, the Euro replaced the currency of 12 of the 15 members of the organization. The Euro reached its highest value against the dollar in 2008; however, like much of the rest of the developed world, the EU was then rocked by the global economic crisis. Since this time, the EU has been attempting to fight off recession and recover, with the only real bright spot being the addition of its twenty-eighth member country Croatia in 2013. The video below gives a succinct explanation of the EU.

Economic Turmoil

In 2008 the global financial crisis hit the European Union and the results have been devastating both economically and with regard to the unity of the region.

The Rich

The economic crisis has hit both rich and poor countries within the Eurozone alike. While many of the rich countries were not in need of bail outs, they still suffered from high debt. First, they had to bail out those troubled fellow EU members that were unable to pay off their high debts after the crisis hit. They also lost markets to sell goods as the cash-strapped nations to the south could not afford to buy as much of their products.

Furthermore, while some indicators of a healthy economy appear to show rich countries in the EU doing well, these can be misleading. In the case of Germany for example, unemployment sits at a very respectable five percent; however, economic growth is virtually flat. In the third quarter of 2014 the economy only grew 0.1 percent, which followed on the heels of a second quarter in which Germany’s economy actually shrunk by 0.1 percent.

Germany is far from the only and certainly not the worst-off wealthy nation in the Eurozone either. France, the second largest economy in the EU, has an unemployment rate of over ten percent and grew only 0.3 percent during the third quarter of 2013. This miniscule growth, similar to that of Germany, also followed a second quarter contraction. Other cases include Spain, the number four economy, and Italy, the number three economy in the Eurozone, with unemployment rates of about 24 percent and 13 percent respectfully.

The Struggling

While the economic crisis certainly hit both wealthy and poor European nations, as is usually the case, the less robust economies ended up worse off. It begins of course with the bail outs. Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Cyprus all had to accept large sums of money from other EU members to avoid default.

Furthermore, as a result of the bail outs, these countries and others struggling with the debt crisis have had to employ austerity measures; however, this strategy limits growth especially because creditors will be hesitant to lend money to struggling economies. This then creates a brutal cycle in which these countries have a difficult time paying off their debts because growth is low and unemployment will remain high. The video below gives a great explanation of the European Union’s economic problems.

Changing Demographics

Coupled with a shaky economic situation are dramatic demographic changes in Europe. This change can be divided into three categories: fertility, age, and ethnicity. First Europe as a whole has a very low fertility rate. Fertility rate is basically the number of children a family can expect to have during its childbearing years. Replacement level, or the level of children being born needed to adequately replace the existing population, is 2.1 children. In 2012 the average fertility rate for countries within the European Union was 1.6 children–well below replacement levels.

Since fewer children are being born, the average populations of these countries are rapidly aging. In Poland for example, the percentage of people above the working age population, 15-64, is expected to increase from 20.9 percent in 2010 to 58 percent in 2050. A large aging population can be a double edged sword, as not only are older people more dependent on public services such as health care and pensions, but they are also less productive in the economy and save less, which affects investing.

Thus a lack of new labor and a society that increasingly needs it has led to mass migration in Europe. This migration can be broken down into two groups. First is the traditional type of immigration, specifically from countries outside the EU to countries inside of it. In 2012, for example, 1.7 million people migrated to the European Union. The other type of migration is within the European Union itself; this figure also was approximately 1.7 million for the year 2012. Both types of migration are headed in one specific direction–west. Western European nations, which not coincidentally have the best economies, are bearing the brunt of the mass movements. The top five destinations in order of descending immigrant arrivals were Germany, the UK, Italy, France, and Spain.

It’s also important to note the origin of the people immigrating. Many are coming from Eastern Europe. A large portion of the incoming people and groups are also Muslim. While it cannot be reiterated enough that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are in every way able adaptable to European life, there is tension in Europe over this influx. Current events, such as the fact that it has been estimated that currently as many as three thousand European-born Muslims have fought on behalf of ISIS or other extremist groups in the Middle East, haven’t helped this tension.

While fear of these fighters returning home has far outstripped any actual problems, the recent shootings in Paris show what can occur when a marginalized group becomes incredibly radicalized. Unfortunately this image of radicalized Muslims plays perfectly into the hands of politicians and right-wing groups that have come to prominence at the expense of immigrant groups.

Europe has a long history of xenophobia. When it deals with mass immigration, the fear has turned into Islamaphobia.  While western Europeans may not be particularly thrilled with eastern European immigrants, Muslims are being singled out in particular because of their different culture and the historical legacy of conflict between Christian and Muslim areas of Europe and the Middle East. This fear and Islamaphobia also extends to first and second generation Muslims as well, particularly in a time of economic uncertainty.

The Reemergence of the Right Wing

All these issues–economic problems, low fertility rates, and mass immigration–have led to a resurgence in the power and appeal of right-wing parties in Europe. More specifically, what has led to this rise is how economic problems are perceived as being compounded by immigration. For example, in the European Union the youth unemployment rate as a whole is 23 percent; in Greece it has been as high as 60 percent.

In a sadly ironic twist the backlash to this has usually been against immigrants who are perceived as stealing the few precious jobs that are available; however, immigration is necessary in the first place because the birth rates are so low. Additionally, immigrant populations have even higher unemployment rates than native youth.

As a result of these concerns, in recent elections several far-right parties including France’s Front National, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Hungary’s Jobbik, and the United Kingdom’s UKIP all won a surprising number of votes. Each of these parties display different combinations of outward anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant sentiments, and racism, or have been associated with such traits in the past. While this by no means represents a majority, it does indicate a disturbing trend for the European Union.

While it seems clear that far-right political movements are on the rise in Europe, the question turns to what exactly these groups want. Just like other political groups, especially across national lines, their interests vary. Overall, the focus seems to be anti-immigration, specifically based on a fear that immigrants will take away badly needed jobs from native residents. At the forefront of this movement is the Front National in France, which won the most seats in the European Parliament of any far right party.

The Front National can be characterized as one of the most moderate of the far-right parties coming to power.  Its primary focus is on nationalism instead of more overtly far-right ideologies espoused by other groups such as Golden Dawn, Jobbik, and the accused neo-Nazi NPD group in Germany; however, Front National has its roots in exactly the same kinds of dogma that these groups maintain, namely anti-Semitism and racism. This is why the far right party in Britain, the UKIP, has refused to join with them. Thus the main connection these groups all seem to have is strong support for anti-immigration measures, which entails moving away from a united Europe and its open migration policies between nations. The video below provides further explanation of the rise of far-right parties and what they believe.

Current State of the Union

Europe appears to be in serious trouble. Its native population is dwindling because of low fertility rates and an aging population. The people migrating in to fill this void, while on the whole younger, also bring different cultures and mindsets. All this has led to a wave of right-wing parties that are in favor of closing borders, ousting immigrants, and breaking away from the ailing European Union.

Europe’s economy, while growing slightly, is still badly damaged and will likely take years just to return to pre-recession levels. Additionally, fertility rates in Europe show no signs of increasing for the most part, at least in native-born citizens. Without more people to assist the aging population, immigration is also likely to continue. This immigration is also likely to continue from Eastern Europe and nations with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, which often include large numbers of Muslims.

In the future, however, it seems possible that significant changes could come to the union. First it is possible that the UK leaves the EU. Prime Minister David Cameron has already been cornered into a vote on whether or not to stay in the union. While a vote certainly doesn’t mean anything for certain, the mere fact that it is being forced upon him does. If the UK does leave it could have additional shockwaves on other nations such as France and Germany and may also lower confidence in the EU’s future.

A lot rides on France and Germany. They both have already invested a lot in the European Union and reaped rewards from it, so it might be a stretch for them to leave; however, calls for potential European bank reforms to mimic what they have done nationally shows not only how they view their own importance in Europe, but also is a test of how the other members view them as well.

Conclusion

Far right parties are becoming increasingly popular and powerful in Europe. This has been the result of a number of factors; notably the Eurozone economic crisis, low fertility rates, an aging population, and a large influx in immigrants. Furthermore, every indication shows that these mechanisms are only likely to keep moving down this path and not reverse course. Therefore, while it is too early to give up on the grand experiment of a United States of Europe, serious reforms are needed if the experiment is to work. Reform is also necessary if European leaders hope to quell the rising influence of far-right parties and their supporters.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: Learning About the Unknown: The Economic Impacts of Aging in Europe and Central Asia

European Commission: 2014 Autumn Economic Forecast; Slow Recovery With Very Low Inflation

European Commission: Eurostat; Migration and Migrant Population Statistics

Additional

NPR: A Brief History of the EU

Forbes: Suddenly the EU’s Break-Up Has Moved From a Long Shot to a Probability

The New York Times: Study on Wealth Fuels Euro Crisis Debate in Germany

Statista: Unemployment Rate in Member States of the European Union

Eurostat: Total Fertility Rates

Vienna Institutefor International Economic Studies: Effects of Euro Crisis on Europe’s Periphery

Telegraph: Muslim Europe; The Demographic Time Bomb Transforming Our Continent

CNN: From Antwerp to Aleppo–and Back; Europe’s Nightmare

Guardian: Eurozone Growth Figures; Germany Narrowly Avoids Triple-Dip Recession

New Geography: Will Europe Hit a Demographic Turning Point?

Huffington Post: Sudden Rise of Far-Right Groups in EU Parliament Rings Alarm Bells Across Europe

USA Today: Immigration Backlah is on the Rise in Europe

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force? appeared first on Law Street.

Sharia law can be confusing to many people outside of the Muslim community, mostly because of a combination of what we hear on the news, stereotypes, and what we are told by those practicing the Islamic faith. Find out more about what Sharia law is, as well as its parent religion Islam and its history.

What is Islam?

Islam is a monotheistic religion that was founded by the prophet Muhammad. The focus of Islam is the worship of God, or Allah in Arabic. Islam literally means “surrender” or “submission” and its practitioners are called Muslims, a term that means “one who submits.” The short video below gives a more in-depth understanding of the basics of it.

Islam came into being when Mohammad received a vision from Allah in 622 AD. It was first practiced in Mecca, where it was crushed, but it gained a foothold in the nearby town of Medina. Since then Islam has spread to all corners of the world with roughly 1,500,000,000 believers. Islam has different sects and branches. While the practices described in this piece are traditional, like any religion, every practicing Muslim has a different relationship with Islam.

How is Islam alike and different from Christianity and Judaism?

The biggest similarity between the three is that they are all monotheistic religions–each believes in one God. Islam broke off from the Judeo-Christian tradition and interprets events differently than Judaism and Christianity. For example, like Christianity, Islam believes in Abraham as its father, but differs from Christianity in its interpretation of which son of Abraham’s was the one for whom Allah would make a nation.

What are key points of Islam?

Islam has five key points, or pillars. According to the Cheadle Mosque:

Shahadah, profession of faith, is the first pillar of Islam. Muslims bear witness to the oneness of God by reciting the creed “There is no God but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.” This simple yet profound statement expresses a Muslim’s complete acceptance of and total commitment to Islam.

Salah, prayer, is the second pillar. The Islamic faith is based on the belief that individuals have a direct relationship with God. The world’s Muslims turn individually and collectively to Makkah, Islam’s holiest city, to offer five daily prayers at dawn, noon, mid-afternoon, sunset and evening. In addition, Friday congregational service is also required. Although salah can he performed alone, it is meritorious to perform it with another or with a group. It is permissible to pray at home, at work, or even outdoors; however it is recommended that Muslims perform salah in a mosque.”

Zakat, almsgiving, is the third pillar. Social responsibility is considered part of one’s service to God; the obligatory act of zakat enshrines this duty. Zakat prescribes payment of fixed proportions of a Muslim’s possessions for the welfare of the entire community and in particular for its neediest members. It is equal to 2.5 percent of an individual’s total net worth, excluding obligations and family expenses.

Sawm, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan, is the fourth pillar of Islam. Ordained in the Holy Qur’an, the fast is an act of deep personal worship in which Muslims seek a richer perception of God. Fasting is also an exercise in self-control whereby one’s sensitivity is heightened to the sufferings of the poor.Ramadan, the month during which the Holy Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, begins with the sighting of the new moon, after which abstention from eating, drinking and other sensual pleasures is obligatory from dawn to sunset. Ramadan is also a joyful month. Muslims break their fast at sunset with a special meal, iftar, perform additional nocturnal worship, tarawih, after evening prayer; and throng the streets in moods that are festive and communal. The end of Ramadan is observed by three days of celebration called Eid Al-Fitr, the feast of the breaking of the fast. Customarily, it is a time for family reunion and the favored holiday for children who receive new clothing and gifts.

 Hajj, the pilgrimage to Makkah, is the fifth pillar and the most significant manifestation of Islamic faith and unity in the world. For those Muslims who are physically and financially able to make the journey to Makkah, the Hajj is a once in a lifetime duty that is the peak of their religious life. The Hajj is a remarkable spiritual gathering of over two million Muslims from all over the world to the holy city. In performing theHajj, a pilgrim follows the order of ritual that the Prophet Muhammad performed during his last pilgrimage.

What is Sharia Law?

Sharia law is a comprehensive set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, as well as daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings for all practicing Muslims. Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries making it the go-to for any and all questions that many Muslims have on any subject with regard to their daily and spiritual lives.

The Qur’an, the holy book of Islam. Image courtesy of Mattia Belleti via Flickr

What provides the basis for Sharia Law?

There are three sources from which Sharia laws take form. They are the Qur’an, which is the Muslim holy book, the Hadith, which is the sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad, and the fatwas, which are the rulings of Islamic scholars.

The Qur’an, pictured above, is the word of Allah, in the way that the Bible is the word of God in Christianity. The Qur’an differs from the Bible in many ways. One of the main differences is that unlike the Bible, which is translated in many different languages, the Qur’an is not. This is because in Islam non-Arabic versions of the Qur’an are considered to be interpretations of the Qur’an and unless the original Arabic verses are embedded on the page alongside the translation, it cannot technically be called a Qur’an.

The Hadith is a series of four books that talk about the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad as well as his conduct. The Hadith covers, quite literally, everything that Muhammad did or said, including details on what to do for public matters such as drinking water, eating, and sleeping, to more private matters such as bathroom habits and sex.

A Fatwa is an “Islamic legal pronouncement issued by an expert in religious law also called a Mufti, pertaining to a specific issue, usually at the request of an individual or judge to resolve an issue where Islamic jurisprudence, also called fiqh, is unclear.” A Fatwa is not binding as is the verdict of a secular court, such as the United States Supreme Court, even though it is considered to be applicable to all members of the Muslim Faith; it all comes to down to the individual to decide if he or she wants to respect the ruling or not. An example of a Fatwa is one that was passed in 1983 forbidding vasectomies, tubectomies, and all forms of abortion.

The list below shows the qualifications that Mufti must have to be able to give a Fatwa:

Know the verses of Qur’ān pertaining to the ruling at hand;

Know the reason behind the verses of Qur’ān related to the ruling – when each was revealed and why;

Distinguish the supportive and oppositional verses of the Qur’ān;

Know all the hadith pertaining to the ruling and the soundness of their chain of transmission;

Be familiar with the legal precedents of the issue before him, including the arguments or consensus reached by earlier scholars; and

Be well-versed in the syntax, grammar, pronunciation, idioms, special linguistic uses, customs and culture prevalent at the time of the Prophet (s) and succeeding two generations.

Anyone who issues a Fatwa that is not qualified according to the standards set above has broken the commands as set out by Muhammad’s successor Umar and is subject to punishment. To some Muslims, these unqualified groups would also include any radical extremist groups.

Where is Sharia Law mostly to be found?

Thirty-five countries currently incorporate Sharia into their civil, common, or customary law; however, they enact the laws very differently. For example, Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey, and Morocco all use Sharia as a primary source of law and do not allow for the stoning or mutilation of people for crimes. On the flip-side, more hard-line Islamic states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Somalia do allow for them, but they are rarely used or enforced.

What are examples of Sharia Law?

The main examples that the Western World hears about are called Hadd offenses, which are unlawful sexual intercourse including sex outside of marriage and adultery, false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, drinking certain types of alcohol, theft, and highway robbery. These five crimes can be punished in one of the following five ways: flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution. These forms of punishment may also be turned into public spectacles. The reason for this is to serve as a deterrent for others who may be thinking about committing the same crime. There are other ways to break Sharia Law with different punishments or policies attached.

How is Sharia Law applied in secular nations?

That is a debatable question that has been raging for the last decade. Here is how Sharia Law has been used in a few different secular nations.

Britain

According to the BBC:

In two important areas British law has incorporated religious legal considerations. British food regulations allow meat to be slaughtered according to Jewish and Islamic practices – a touchstone issue for both communities.

Secondly, the Treasury has approved Sharia-compliant financial products such as mortgages and investments. Islam forbids interest on the basis that it is money unjustly earned. These products are said by supporters to meet the needs of modern life in a way that fits the faith.

America 

Sharia law has entered into some state court decisions, usually to do with personal disputes. An example of this is a case that happened in the state of New Jersey where a woman filed for divorce on the basis that her husband had left her. The husband cited Pakistani law, which follows Sharia, claiming that New Jersey had no right to interfere. The trial court agreed with the wife and ordered the husband to pay spousal maintenance; however, the Appellate Court overturned the ruling based on the fact that the couple’s Islamic pre-marital agreement did not provide for spousal maintenance and did not allow the wife to take an interest in the husband’s property.

Conclusion

Sharia Law is a collection of laws that dictate order to Islamic societies. Many Muslims who wish to be true to the commands of Allah attempt to follow these laws as best as they can. Although there’s a lot of misinformation out there, Sharia Law’s applications depend on the circumstances, nation, and individual.

Resources

Primary

Saudi Embassy: Five Pillars 

Islamic Supreme Court of America: What is a Fatwa? 

Additional

Slate: How to Read the Quran

BBC: Q&A Sharia Law Explained

Patheos Library: Islam 

JRank: Comparative Criminal Law and Enforcement: Islam – Hadd Offenses, False Accusation Of Unlawful Intercourse (kadhf ), Drinking Of Wine (shurb), Theft (sariqa)

Council on Foreign Relations: Islam: Governing Under Sharia

PBS: Five Pillars

JRank: Comparative Criminal Law Enforcement Islam

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to BBC. 

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sharia Law: History and Modern Application appeared first on Law Street.

Cannibalism is truly the stuff of nightmares that, terrifyingly enough, still occurs today. Recently police found a 34-year-old man, Matthew Williams, eating the face and eyes of a 22-year-old woman whom he recently killed in a hostel in Wales. He later died after the police stunned him with a 50,000-volt taser.

Williams, who had been recently released from jail, lived in the hostel, which housed many homeless people and former convicts. He allegedly brought his victim, Cerys Yemm, back to the building for a drink after meeting her for the first time. A key witness in the case informed authorities that Williams had taken a number of drugs earlier that evening. There is substantial debate over just what those drugs were. Some coverage claims that he took cocaine while others claim he overdosed on beta blockers and injected himself with heroin substitutes.

Hostel owner Mandy Miles discovered Williams covered in blood eating Yemm’s eye and face. According to a recent article, Williams said “that’s no girl” after Miles exclaimed “do you know what you’re doing to that girl?” Miles told authorities that she would have attacked Williams with a fire extinguisher if she thought there was any chance that Yemm was still alive. However, she found it clear that Yemm’s situation was beyond hope and so she locked Williams in the room and phoned the police. Miles stated recently that she frequently experiences flashbacks to the horrifying incident.

Following his grisly crime, Williams’ mother informed authorities that she felt it could have been prevented. According to her, her son was not taking the proper medication following his release and should have been hospitalized for his severe mental disorders. She elaborated on her son’s condition by saying that he heard voices and often suffered paranoid delusions. A fellow inmate imprisoned with Williams claimed that he called himself “the Wolf” because he ate people.

This isn’t the first story in the past few months of incidents of people eating human flesh. In June a Norwegian man consumed the meat taken off of his own hip bone following a surgical procedure. His actions, of course, differed substantially from this case as they did not inflict harm on others.

Even celebrities are weighing in on the topic of eating other people. Josh Hutcherson, best known as Peeta from The Hunger Games film series, recently conceded that he was curious about the taste of human flesh. Granted, he said he would only consume said theoretical human flesh if it were from someone who “died of natural causes.” Sorry, Josh, that is still a creepy thing to say.

Hopefully, this recent incident of cannibalism remains an isolated and rare occurrence and isn’t the start of a violent trend.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hostel Cannibalism: Welsh Man Eats Woman’s Eyeball and Face appeared first on Law Street.

The people of Scotland voted to maintain their 307-year-old union with the United Kingdom yesterday, as the Scottish independence referendum was defeated by a margin of 55.3 to 45.7 percent. The referendum had numerous implications for both Scotland and the UK, and while Scottish residents decided against independence, a shift in UK politics may now be looming.

The referendum marks one of the most significant events in UK politics, and campaigning went down to the wire as preliminary polls anticipated a narrow result. On September 15, just three days before the vote took place, the three major Parties in parliament vowed to provide more power to the Scottish government. David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband, leaders of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Labour Parties respectively, all came out in support of giving Scotland more control over its budget and public policy if the independence movement were to fail. Such a promise may have influenced the results of the referendum, and may also explain why its defeat was greater than previously expected.

The Future of Devolution

The debate over Scottish autonomy has sparked a lot of discussion of the media is calling “Devo-Max.” This term, also known as Devolution Max or “independence lite,” is the concept of giving Scotland a significant amount of autonomy in taxation, spending, and internal policy matters. At its fullest extent, Devo-Max would give Scotland control over nearly all of its policy with the exception of national matters like defense and foreign policy, which would remain in the hands of the national government.

Fiscal autonomy is one area that specifically appeals to the people of Scotland. A What Scotland Thinks poll found that nearly three quarters of Scottish residents favor giving the Scottish parliament primary authority over taxation and welfare if it did not become independent. Currently, Scotland receives a block grant from parliament each year to fund policy initiatives under its authority. If devolution went as far as fiscal autonomy, nearly all of its revenue would go directly to the Scottish Parliament, rather than to the UK for parliament to allocate.

The West Lovian Question

Conventional wisdom suggests that further devolution may be favorable to both Scotland and the United Kingdom, as Scotland would have more autonomy and the UK would retain the economic benefits of the union. However, such a solution could also exacerbate the current “West Lothian Question,” in parliament. The West Lothian dilemma was created during an earlier period of devolution. This problem got its name after Tam Dalyell, a member of parliament (MP) for the Scottish constituency of West Lothian, who cautioned against further devolution of power.

The UK parliament in Westminster devolved some of its authority to create the Scottish parliament in the late 1990s, and as a result, it no longer deals with every issue related to Scotland. Scotland still has MPs in Westminster to provide Scotland with a say in issues of national importance. As a result, issues that exclusively affect England are still voted on by the national parliament – meaning members from Scotland have a say in issues that exclusively affect England. The practical consequences of this could be a vote outcome that does not reflect the views of MPs representing English districts, even if the bill only affects England. As more and more power is devolved to Scotland and other parts of the UK, this problem will continue to worsen.

Suggested solutions to the West Lovian dilemma include the creation of England’s own local government, or restricting the vote on England-only issues to MPs from English districts. However, many oppose the creation of an additional level of government, and changing who can vote on specific legislation could create two different majorities depending on the issue at hand.

Going forward

Although the extent to which Parliament will devolve power to Scotland remains unknown, it is clear that the recent referendum has shaken up politics in the UK. Momentum from the independence campaign has forced a response from parliament; however, further devolution creates its own problems. Although the 307-year-old union remains, the UK’s national politics are likely going to change.

Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister and strong proponent of independence, announced his resignation after the results of the referendum came out. Although the referendum failed to secure independence for Scotland, it did provoke a significant response from parliament. In his resignation statement, Salmond noted the significance of the movement saying, “We now have the opportunity to hold Westminister’s feet to the fire on the ‘vow’ that they have made to devolve further meaningful power to Scotland. This places Scotland in a very strong position.”

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [stuart anthony via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does Scotland Go From Here? appeared first on Law Street.

Security cameras are a common facet in many places that we frequent, from office complexes to shopping malls. Closed circuit security cameras (CCTV) are mainly put in place to keep people safe, but one notable place where CCTVs are missing is our schools.

Tragedies such as the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 have raised alarms for increased school security and the use of technology to keep children safe. Many schools have security cameras at their entrances and, in some cases, in hallways and other high-traffic areas. In the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other nations, schools are beginning to experiment with the idea of placing closed-circuit security cameras in classrooms. Read on to learn the arguments about whether or not we should extend CCTV coverage to our public school classrooms.

What are the arguments for putting CCTVs in classrooms?

Those who support the addition of cameras to public school classrooms argue that they will increase school security while providing a useful tool for teacher collaboration. Many claim that the presence of the cameras alone would be enough to deter many students from committing crimes or engaging in common misbehavior while in the classroom. Cameras can also provide evidence if students are accused of a crime, saving administration from conducting lengthy and probing investigations.

Cameras could also be used by teachers as a tool to share effective learning methods and to connect with parents. Experienced, highly effective teachers could videotape segments of their lessons to be used in professional development programs and teacher training courses. Advocates have also argued that cameras could serve as deterrents to those bad teachers who do exist, particularly in special needs classrooms where students may have difficulty communicating instances of abuse to their parents. Parents would also have the ability to become in tune with what their children experience in the classroom, creating a closer marriage of a student’s education and home life and allowing parents to understand and supplement that education.

What are the arguments against CCTVs in classrooms?

Opponents are cautious about the installation of CCTVs due to the intrusion upon public school classrooms. Some administrators have indicated plans to use CCTVs to evaluate teacher performance and determine teacher effectiveness. Many professionals in American education oppose this method of teacher evaluation, as it seeks to make direct links between teacher methods and student achievement without accounting for other variables, such as socio-economic conditions and student behavior.

Additionally, using constant video surveillance of teachers as a form of evaluation would lead to a system where teacher merely imitate specific behaviors and methods they know evaluators are looking for while lacking creativity, individuality, and maverick methods that often characterize the best teachers and drive innovation. Many opponents also indicate that the presence of cameras could create a “Big Brother” atmosphere in the classroom, dampen student participation, and dissuade many students from exercising free speech.

Others worry that it infringes upon the relationships that teachers can have with their students. Teachers often have the ability to engage with their students about sensitive topics, including problems at home, difficulties in school, and the like. Teachers worry that installing CCTV cameras will make it less likely that students can confide in them, and therefore less likely that they are able to provide help or advice for those students. This worry is compounded by the fact that in most cases where cameras are installed, they are not able to turned off by the teachers themselves.

CCTVs in Classrooms in the UK

The idea of CCTVs has gained great momentum in Britain, where 85 percent of schools currently have CCTVs, and some schools, such as Stockwell Park High School in South London, have over 100 cameras inside its buildings (two in each classroom and 40 in hallways, cafeterias, and other areas).

The CCTV-based monitoring has had mixed reception in the UK. Teachers don’t really seem to like the institution of the cameras, citing concerns that they’re not in place for safety reasons, but rather to judge teachers. A teachers union conducted a study in the UK and discovered that 41 percent of teachers claimed that the cameras were used to find evidence that led to “negative views” of the staff being monitored.

There have also been cases of students in the UK being unhappy with the CCTV cameras placed in their schools. In a school in Essex, a student named Sam Goodman started a protest after discovering that cameras that were said to have been placed in his school for training purposes had actually been switched on. Goodman took many issues with the implementation of CCTV cameras, pointing out, “We’ll end up with all teachers being the same. And pupils will grow up thinking that it’s acceptable to be monitored like this.” He also was suspicious that the cameras were just supposed to be used for teacher training, claiming that the equipment seemed too extensive for such a narrow purpose. He eventually started a walk-out to protest the CCTV cameras.

There’s also a debate ongoing in the UK that the placement of CCTV cameras has gone too far. According to a British watchdog group called Big Brother Watch, more than 200 schools had installed CCTVs in restrooms and changing rooms (locker rooms). The only way that Big Brother Watch got that information was by filing a Freedom of Information Request with the government. A statement from Big Brother Watch claimed:

The full extent of school surveillance is far higher than we had expected and will come as a shock to many parents. Schools need to come clean about why they are using these cameras and what is happening to the footage. Local authorities also need to be doing far more to reign in excessive surveillance in their areas and ensuring resources are not being diverted from more effective alternatives. The Home Office’s proposed regulation of CCTV will not apply to schools and the new Commissioner will have absolutely no powers to do anything. Parents will be right to say that such a woefully weak system is not good enough.

While CCTV surveillance has become a sort of norm in the UK, many are still not happy about it. Those who are advocating for CCTV cameras in classrooms in the U.S. may be able to improve on the UK’s experiment to avoid the problems found there, while those who oppose the implementation may use the UK’s problems as reasoning for avoiding CCTV cameras in classrooms here.

Conclusion

Given the concentration of cameras in certain institutions, it’s no surprise that we’re now talking about implementing them in public school classrooms. While there are certainly benefits, such as added security and deterrence from fighting, there are also strong arguments against the practice, such as privacy concerns. Taking a cue from the UK’s book may be a smart idea, but whether or not the practice will catch on in the U.S. remains to be seen.

Resources

Primary 

Change.org: Cameras in Special Needs Classrooms

Hudson Park High School: CCTV Report

Additional

PR Web: CCTV Cameras Can Prevent Violence in the Classroom

SelfGrowth.com: Classrooms Should Have Closed-Circuit Cameras

Boss Closed Security: School Closed Circuit TV: How Does it Work and Why?

TES Connect: CCTV is Used to Spy on Teachers

Sydney Morning Herald: School Surveillance Puts Trust at Risk

LoveToKnow.com: Keep Security Cameras Out of School Classrooms

Salon: Big Brother Invades Our Classrooms

National Education Policy Center: Cameras in the Classroom: A Good Idea?

Guardian: Someone to Watch Over You

Learn By Cam: CCTV in Schools and Classrooms

USA Today: Who’s Watching the Class?

ZD Net: Should CCTV Be Allowed in Schools and Universities?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CCTV Cameras in Classrooms: Big Brother Watching? appeared first on Law Street.

Citizens of the UK have just two weeks to protect themselves from a dangerous computer virus that could potentially give hackers access to their personal information and cost the country billions of pounds. The National Crime Agency (NCA) said in a statement that they urge citizens to protect themselves from any malicious software by updating their anti-virus software and running frequent scans on their computers. UK based internet awareness group Get Safe Online said, “This warning is not intended to give you panic, but we cannot over-stress the importance of taking these steps immediately.”

The announcement comes after the FBI successfully stopped a group of hackers who were holding peoples personal information hostage, but the disruption is only temporary. The viruses are known as GOZeuS and CryptoLocker, and each is incredibly harmful and can invade your email, bank accounts, and other personal information.

GOZeuS hides itself within email attachments, and when opened can give hackers access to your computer. CryptoLocker is a secondary virus that activates if no valuable information is detected. This virus locks the computer from the user and does not give back access until a ransom is paid. If the victims do not pay on time, they lose the ability to do so and risk having their data permanently encrypted.

Hackers usually demand $300 to $700, typically requested in bitcoins. Andy Archibald, Deputy Director of the NCA’s National Cyber Crime Unit, said: “Nobody wants their personal financial details, business information or photographs of loved ones to be stolen or held to ransom by criminals. By making use of this two-week window, huge numbers of people in the UK can stop that from happening to them.”

Cybercrime is often overlooked and seen as a laughable crime to be affected by, but its seriousness is very real. According to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) there were 262,813 reports of cybercrime last year, resulting in the losses over $781 million.

The IC3 became aware of the malicious CryptoLock in October of 2013 and have since become more knowledgeable of the malware and how it operates. The virus is so intricately designed that it is nearly impossible to completely wipe out.

Whether you find online security complicated, boring, or useless, now is the time to take action as cybercrimes are prevalent and could cost you immensely. There are numerous places where you can find cyber security help if you don’t know where to start.

Get Safe Online is a UK based website that focuses on providing information on online safety. According to its website it is “a unique resource providing practical advice on how to protect yourself, your computers, and mobile devices against fraud, identity theft, viruses and many other problems encountered online.” There are plenty of similar resources like Get Safe Online in America as well. US-Cert stands for United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team, which deals with major incidents, analyze threats, and exchange critical cyber security information with other trusted outlets.

The criminals committing cybercrimes are much smarter than your average criminal and are highly skilled in the art of staying anonymous. To keep you and your personal information safe, it is vital that you update your security software as often as possible and think twice before clicking on links or attachments from strange emails.

[Get Safe Online]

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Don Hankins via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UK Citizens Face Massive Online Threat appeared first on Law Street.

During the summer and fall of 2013, a drug called “Molly” started to make headlines. As a 20-something, I’d of course heard about it before, but in recent months, the term has become mainstream. In a stretch of a few weeks last summer, four deaths were blamed on overdoses of Molly, which is just the common name for MDMA.

Molly, or MDMA, is what is classified as a “designer drug,” meaning that it’s a drug not naturally occurring or produced, like marijuana. Instead, a designer drug is initially created in a lab, by experimenting on existing drugs or compounds.

Designer drugs are notoriously difficult to regulate and make illegal, simply because of chemistry. There are essentially limitless combinations of drugs that can be synthesized. Anytime a substance is specifically banned, it’s pretty easy to make a variant of that substance, or discover a new substance altogether. 

A man named Dr. David Caldicott founded a group called WENDINOS, an acronym for “Welsh Emerging Drugs & Identification of Novel Substances Project,” which catalogs and tests new drugs. There’s a similar organization in Australia, also founded by Caldicott and called, ACTINOS. There may be similar organizations in the United States, but if so, I was not able to find any. Most regulation and cataloging seems to come from the US government.

Caldicott described the problem with the evolution of designer drugs, stating, “I compare the phenomenon of illicit drug use to influenza. During the course of a year influenza changes slightly, which is why you get a new jab every year. But every 10 to 15 years we see a major shift.”

The other interesting thing about these designer drugs is that they’re often legal…at least for a short period of time. They can be developed much more quickly than laws can be passed to regulate them. The law does eventually catch up, to be sure, but it’s usually at least a few months or a year after the drug has seen some moderate use.

There’s also something to be said for the use of the internet in this, for lack of a better description, grey market. The internet has proliferated this market in two ways. First, it allows chemists and other designer drug marketers to share their information, experiments, tips, and successes. Once a chemical formula has been derived, it can be shared and made by anyone who has the same equipment.

The internet also allows substances to be sold on a virtual, unregulated international market. Mike Power, an investigative journalist with Medium, wrote a powerful piece about his experience with this market. He described how he was able to order a substance that wasn’t necessarily illegal in the UK from a Chinese chemical manufacturer. He gave a rather flimsy excuse for why he needed the chemicals, in fact, scientifically speaking, the excuse was blatantly false. But the Chinese company didn’t look into his reasoning, and a few weeks later sent him the chemically synthesized compound in powder form. If Power was a drug dealer, as opposed to a journalist, he could turn around and sell that drug for a big profit. And the entire thing would probably be legal.

What’s especially concerning about this whole thing is that we have no idea what these synthesized drugs could do in the long term. We know the long term effects of marijuana, cocaine, and any other mainstream drug. We even have some handle on the long term effects of abusing prescription drugs, such as Vicodin. But when these compounds are being created and changed out so quickly, there’s no real telling what they can do.

That’s incredibly scary. Many of the Molly-caused deaths this year are believed to be because of impure substances mixed in with the drugs. When you consider the willingness of young people to take Molly from their friends or from dealers without any certification of what they are putting in their body, it’s terrifying to imagine what these unregulated new drugs could do. But what can be done? As Power put it, “And here lies the problem. We can ban drugs. But we can’t ban chemistry, and we can’t ban medical research.”

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Derek Gavey via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Scary Side of Designer Drugs appeared first on Law Street.

A new law in the UK is grabbing attention–perhaps because of its catchy TV-inspired title. It’s been nicknamed the Downton Law, after the popular PBS show “Downton Abbey.” Or perhaps it’s making headlines because of what it would do. The Downton Law would allow British women to inherit noble titles.

Here’s a brief history for us Americans who don’t know too much about British nobility. British nobility titles are subject to something called primogeniture. While primogeniture technically just means that a title would go to the first child, in the UK it means that a title will go to the first-born son. If there is no son, it will go to the next eligible male relative, even if the deceased title holder has a daughter.

Back when these laws were instituted, in the Middle Ages, they did make some sense, archaic standards of gender roles aside. Women weren’t allowed to inherit titles because they weren’t really viewed as people. They most likely went straight from their father’s house to their husband’s–if they took a title with them it wouldn’t stay in the original family.

But now, they’re just silly. The Downton Law, officially named the notably less sexy Equality Titles Bill, would allow men who are dukes, earls, viscounts, and other hereditary titles to pass them to their daughters. Recently an amendment added barons–a different sort of title, but still hereditary–onto the list.

There are a few reasons that this legislation is important. First, it obviously eradicates some archaic institutionalized sexism in the UK. The royal family already did so–the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act would allow the throne to be passed to the eldest child first, regardless of gender. It’s important to note that the Monarchy has actually been better on this issue than all of these lower nobility titles for a long time. Women have been able to inherit the British throne for hundreds of years; but only if they had no brothers. The nobility titles included in the Downtown Law wouldn’t even go to daughters at all, they would go to a distant male relative.

The other problem that makes this legislation important is the quandary that happens if there is no distant male relative to whom to give the title. The title disappears, even if there are plenty of eligible women to inherit it. There are some baronets at risk of that right now. For example, the Stuart Taylor barony is currently held by Sir Nicholas Stuart Taylor Bt. He has two daughters and no eligible male heir. If he is not able to pass the title to his daughter, it will no longer exist. The elder daughter, Virginia Stuart Taylor points out, “I have been brought up believing that girls are equal to boys, often getting better grades at university. Everything is equal and it seems kind of ridiculous that we are trying so hard to make it fair for women in other areas of life but not in this one.” The law has received support; but whether or not it will pass will have to be seen.

This law isn’t just interesting because of its impact on feminism or historical preservation. It’s also interesting because a lot of people are attributing it to the influence of the Downton Abbey show, which has a major plot line centered on female succession. Perhaps the show brought attention to the fact that these laws still exist is pretty ridiculous, or perhaps onlookers are mistaking correlation for causation. Either way, this is good news, and a pretty great thing happening in the UK right now, whether it was influenced by TV or not.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Bas Sipjkes via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Downton Law Making Headlines in UK appeared first on Law Street.